capture_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that recording happens in the background, that it survives log rotation, and that it captures everything including verbose output. It doesn't mention how long the buffer lasts or whether it overwrites, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, the second provides usage context and workflow. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, workflow, and key differentiator. It doesn't explain return values, but an output schema exists. It doesn't mention buffer limits or lifecycle, but the core usage context is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain the 'label' or 'serial' parameters at all. However, both parameters are optional with defaults, and the tool's core behavior is clear. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate given the low coverage.

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 action ('Begin recording logcat into a background ring buffer') and distinguishes it from read_logs by noting it survives log rotation and captures verbose output. This is a specific verb+resource combination that differentiates it from siblings.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('when the user is about to reproduce a bug'), provides a workflow (start capture, reproduce, then query with capture_read), and contrasts with read_logs. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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