connect_device

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation (readOnlyHint=false) and an open world (openWorldHint=true). The description adds the prerequisite that the target must already be listening on TCP, which is useful context, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., device appearing in device lists) or failure behavior.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It fully conveys the tool's purpose and the critical prerequisite, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema) and the description covers its core function and the required network target format. It could mention the post-connection state (e.g., the device becomes available for other ADB commands), but for a straightforward operation this is not a significant gap.

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 schema has 100% parameter description coverage for 'target' with an example of the expected format. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Connect') with a clear resource ('ADB to a physical device or emulator already listening on TCP using host:port'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'disconnect_device' and 'list_devices' by focusing on establishing a TCP connection.

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 phrase 'already listening on TCP' implies the intended context, and the host:port format gives a concrete usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites such as an ADB server running.

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