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 of behavioral disclosure. It explains the 'all if omitted' behavior, but does not describe side effects, whether the device remains listed in adb_devices with an offline status, or what happens to active connections using that port. For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a gap.

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 efficient sentence that conveys the primary behavior. It is appropriately concise with no waste. It doesn't elaborate on parameters, but for its length it is well-formed and 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?

With 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should compensate heavily. It fails to document parameter semantics, error behavior, or the state implications of disconnecting. For a state-changing tool with this level of structured-data absence, the description is notably incomplete.

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%, meaning neither the schema nor the description explains the host and port parameters. The description references 'host:port' format conceptually to match the adb disconnect syntax, but provides no concrete guidance on whether host is required without port, whether port has a default, or how the two fields interact. The agent must infer adb CLI conventions.

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 states the verb (disconnect) and resource (a device or all), which is clear. However, it only says 'host:port' format implied but doesn't clarify which fields map to host and port, nor does it distinguish from adb_connect clearly beyond being the inverse operation. Compared to siblings like adb_connect (its natural inverse), the purpose is understandable but not strongly differentiated.

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 notes the behavior when parameters are omitted ('or all if omitted'), which provides some usage context. However, it does not explain when to use this tool vs adb_connect, when disconnecting is appropriate, or any prerequisites (e.g., must be connected first). No explicit when-not guidance or alternative references are provided.

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