Test Device Connection

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that no Dev Studio tab must be open and that the tool returns basic device info.

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?

Three sentences front-load the action and scope, then state the key prerequisite exception and the sibling differentiators. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only probe with no output schema, the description covers what it does, how to route around siblings, and what result type to expect ('basic device info'). Nothing needed for correct call selection is missing.

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 fully documents the device parameter (IP, serial, or omit for focused device), so the description is not required to compensate. However, the tool description repeatedly says 'IP' and 'address,' which under-emphasizes the serial and focused-device options that the schema explicitly supports; the 'one known device' framing adds only modest clarifying value.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Probe one known device IP for ECP reachability and return basic device info.' It explicitly differentiates itself from probe_bridge and scan_devices, telling an agent exactly what makes this tool distinct.

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?

It says when to use it ('confirm a specific IP is a reachable Roku before connect_device') and names the alternatives with their conditions: probe_bridge checks Dev Studio, scan_devices finds unknown devices. It also notes the Dev Studio tab is not required, which removes a common prerequisite concern.

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