read_logs

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 a hard cap on results ('hard-capped by FLUTTER_BRIDGE_MAX_LINES') and defaults for min_level and buffer, which are beyond what the schema conveys. However, it doesn't mention whether reading logs has any side effects (unlikely) or whether it requires an active device connection, though that's implied by the serial parameter.

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 the purpose and then lists parameters in a clear Args block. It is appropriately sized, not overly verbose, and each parameter line adds value. It could be slightly more compact but is well-organized and easy to scan.

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?

With seven parameters and no annotations, the description covers all parameter semantics and the limit cap. The output schema exists, so return format is not required in the description. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., requires a device) but that is inferable from the serial parameter and sibling tools. Overall, an agent can invoke it correctly with the provided information.

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%, and the description compensates thoroughly. It explains every parameter: package, tag, min_level, contains, limit, buffer, and serial, providing meanings and constraints (e.g., min_level options, case-insensitive contains, hard cap). This is far more than the schema's bare defaults, giving an agent everything needed to choose and format arguments.

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: 'Read recent logcat output, filtered.' This specifies a verb (read), a resource (logcat output), and the concept of filtering. It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_crashes (which searches for specific crashes) and clear_logs (which clears logs), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention find_crashes for targeted crash analysis or capture_* for streaming, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Usage context is only implied by the filtering capabilities.

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