pair_wireless

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses persistence ('once'), requires user action on the phone, and warns about the port distinction. It does not cover failure cases or state changes, but the essential behavior is clear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose, phone-side instructions, and the critical port warning. Every sentence adds useful information and the most important fact is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and minimal schema descriptions, this is nearly complete: it explains how to obtain the inputs, what those inputs mean, and the key gotcha. It could clarify the optional device parameter and name the follow-up connect tool, but a correct call is achievable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining address as the ip:port and code as the 6-digit pairing code. The optional device parameter is not described, but it is not required and has a default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action ('Pair with a phone over Wi-Fi') and a clear outcome ('no cable is needed afterwards'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that pairing is one-time and that the pairing port differs from the connection port.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context: use this when setting up wireless debugging, with concrete steps on the phone. It implies the follow-up is connecting, but does not explicitly name connect_wireless or state when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.