quest_connect_wireless

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the prerequisite (WiFi) and the outcome (cable can be unplugged), but does not explain what happens if the headset is not on WiFi, whether the USB connection is lost, or how the wireless connection is established. This is adequate but leaves gaps about failure modes and side effects.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds a necessary prerequisite, making it highly concise and efficient.

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?

For a state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a key prerequisite. However, it omits parameter guidance (device_id) and any mention of error conditions or expected results. It is minimally complete but would benefit from explaining device selection and connection failure scenarios.

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?

The input schema has one optional parameter 'device_id' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The agent gets no help understanding what device_id refers to, when to provide it, or whether it is needed if multiple headsets are present. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare field name.

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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Switch the USB-connected headset to wireless ADB' with the purpose 'so the cable can be unplugged.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like quest_info or quest_devices, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description gives a clear usage condition: 'The headset must be on WiFi.' It also implies when to use the tool (when you want to unplug the USB cable). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when the headset is not on WiFi.

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