adb_pair

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the pairing mechanism (6-digit code with IP:port) which is helpful, but it doesn't disclose post-pairing expected behavior such as whether adb connect is then required, whether pairing is persistent across reboots, or state requirements (developer mode, wireless debugging enabled).

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?

A single well-formed sentence that packs the key information (Android 11+, wireless debugging, 6-digit code, IP:port, exact UI source quote) with no wasted words. The quoted source helps the agent know exactly where to look for the values.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the core pairing context but omits preconditions (developer options enabled, wireless debugging toggled on) and follow-up steps (adb_connect needed after pairing succeeds). It's adequate for basic invocation but leaves the end-to-end workflow implicit.

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 must compensate for what the three parameters (host, port, code) mean. The description defines the code parameter contextually ('6-digit code') and implies host/port come from the pairing dialog, but it doesn't explicitly map each parameter to its source or give format guidance for host (IP vs hostname) — partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 (pair), resource (Android 11+ device via Wireless debugging), and method (6-digit code + IP:port). It distinguishes from siblings like adb_connect and adb_disconnect by specifying the pairing-code workflow, though a slight overlap with adb_connect exists since both establish connections.

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 (for Android 11+ wireless debugging pairing) and quotes the exact UI prompt source. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with adb_connect (which handles already-paired connections) or state when NOT to use this tool, leaving the distinction between pairing and connecting implied rather than stated.

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