apple_start_live_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that unified captures OSLog 'where supported,' but does not disclose side effects, blocking behavior, session lifecycle, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is insufficient for a tool that starts a live session.

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 at two sentences, with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains the stream types. It is front-loaded and efficient, though a bit more structure (e.g., bullet points for parameters) could improve readability.

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?

Given the complexity of 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the session lifecycle (e.g., that sessions need to be stopped later), return values, or how sessions are identified. The description lacks critical context for an agent to effectively use the 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?

With only 57% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'console' and 'unified' streams but does not explain parameters like predicate, processName, terminateExisting, or their effects. The schema provides some descriptions, but the description does not enhance understanding.

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 starts a live Apple app log capture session and distinguishes between console and unified streams. It differentiates from sibling tools like apple_list_devices, apple_list_log_sessions, apple_read_live_logs, and apple_stop_live_logs by specifying the action of starting a session.

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 explains that console captures print/stdout/stderr and unified captures OSLog where supported, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to choose console vs unified streams. The context of use is implied but not fully articulated.

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