Connect device

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, idempotent, non-open-world semantics, and the description adds real behavioral context on top: network transport, default port 5555, and the one-time pairing prerequisite on Android 11+. It does not cover failure modes (same-network requirement, refused/timeout behavior) or what happens when re-connecting an already-connected host, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the prerequisite and inverse tool in the position an agent reads last. The host/port sentence duplicates the schema's own description and is the one mildly redundant element, keeping this just under a 5.

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-parameter tool with no output schema and adequate annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, addressing format, and the inverse operation, which is enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is runtime behavior on failure or on already-connected devices, which an agent would have to discover empirically.

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 100% and the single host parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the implied default port and an example address. The description largely restates that format, adding no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema already carries, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Connect to a device over network ADB') and immediately disambiguates against siblings by naming adb_pair as the prerequisite and adb_disconnect as the inverse operation. An agent can distinguish this tool from the rest of the adb_* family without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the condition for use: an Android 11+ phone must be paired once with adb_pair, 'after that adb_connect is enough.' It also names the inverse tool, adb_disconnect, giving the agent both the entry condition and the exit path.

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