adb_disconnect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the boundary condition: omission disconnects all TCP targets. However, the first case says 'one ADB target' without specifying TCP-only, which could be ambiguous regarding USB targets.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and parameter behavior. No extraneous information.

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 simple tool with one parameter, the description covers the essential behavior. It doesn't mention potential errors or output, but an output schema exists. Minor gap: no note about successful disconnection feedback.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds significant value by explaining that omitting the target disconnects all TCP targets. It implies the target is a string identifier, but could specify the format (e.g., IP:port).

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 verb 'Disconnect' and the resource 'ADB target', and distinguishes between disconnecting a single target or all TCP targets when omitted. This specificity differentiates it from sibling tools like adb_devices or adb_forward.

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 implies when to use it (when disconnecting ADB targets) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide usage context. With many sibling ADB tools, more guidance would be beneficial.

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