pair_with_code

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. Description only states 'pair', adding no further behavioral details such as success/failure outcomes, side effects, or required device state. Minimal added value beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words; efficient and direct.

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 simple pairing tool with an output schema, the basic action is covered. However, it lacks context like prerequisite device state (pairing mode) and expected outcomes, which would aid completeness.

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?

Adds that 'code' is six-digit, but provides no description for 'ip' or 'pairing_port' format or acceptable values. Schema coverage is 0%, so description only partially compensates.

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?

Clearly states the action (pair), resource (Android wireless-debugging device), and method (six-digit code). Differentiates from sibling tools like tcpip_pair_device and connect_device by specifying the code-based pairing method.

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?

Implies usage for Android 11+ wireless debugging, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like tcpip_pair_device or connect_device. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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