capture_logcat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Capture Android system logs' and lists parameters; it does not mention whether the operation is safe/read-only, requires special permissions or device connection, or what side effects (e.g., overwriting output_file) might occur. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by an arg list where each line is necessary and informative. There is no filler, redundancy, or irrelevant detail, making it highly efficient.

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 description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and a hint of context. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, it omits environmental requirements (e.g., device connectivity, ADB presence) and potential error modes, which would be useful for a 5-parameter tool. Still, for a straightforward capture command, it is mostly complete.

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 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: output_file as path, device_id as optional serial, lines with default, filter_spec with an example (%*:W% for warnings+), and include_timestamps as a boolean. This provides actionable meaning beyond the raw schema fields.

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 'Capture Android system logs (logcat)' with a specific verb and resource, which matches the tool name and distinguishes the action. It adds context about device activity and app behavior, but it does not explicitly call out sibling tools like capture_dmesg, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'Critical for understanding device activity and app behavior' provides clear use-case context, implying when an agent should reach for this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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