capture_dmesg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful information that the tool may require root access and describes the content of the captured data. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, potential side effects, or output handling, leaving some gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a brief explanation of log content, a clearly labeled args list, and a note about root access. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema is present, so the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, parameters, and a key caveat (root access). Minor gaps exist regarding when to use versus alternatives, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this tool.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: output_file as the path to save dmesg output, and device_id as an optional device serial number. This is clear and actionable, though it lacks examples or format details.

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 tool captures the kernel ring buffer (dmesg) and lists the types of logs it contains (hardware events, driver messages, security-related logs). The verb 'Capture' plus the specific resource 'kernel ring buffer' makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling capture_logcat.

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 usage for kernel/hardware/security log investigation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like capture_logcat. No direct 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided, only inferable context from the log types.

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