connect_wireless

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 discloses the two-step process (pair then connect) and the roles of host:port, pair_address, and pairing_code. However, it does not mention what happens on failure, network prerequisites, or the state of previous connections, which would be helpful.

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 concise at two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and covers the key parameters efficiently. Every sentence adds value.

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 the moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and workflow but does not specify return values or error handling. It is sufficient for a basic connection tool but could be improved.

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 already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for host_port, pair_address, and pairing_code. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, primarily clarifying the workflow (pairing code from Android 11+). 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 the specific verb 'connect' and resource 'device over Wi-Fi/TCP', and distinguishes the tool from sibling tools by mentioning ADB operations. It contrasts with siblings that are unrelated to wireless connectivity.

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 explains when to use the tool (for Wi-Fi/TCP connections) and provides explicit instructions for pairing with the 6-digit code from Android 11+ Wireless debugging. It does not directly name alternative tools for other connection methods, but the context is clear enough.

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