get_app_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the line format ('<timestamp> App[pid:tid] [category] message'), which tells the agent what the payload looks like, but omits whether reads accumulate from launch, whether buffer size is bounded, and only implicitly signals that clear discards data. Adequate but leaves real behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first gives purpose and the precondition, the second gives the exact output shape. Nothing is wasted and the critical constraint is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does via the sample line format; the schema covers paging via lines and filtering via grep. Minor gaps remain around buffer lifecycle and whether output is joined text or an array, but nothing that would cause a mis-call.

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 80% and the schema already documents grep, clear, lines, and device well, so the baseline is 3. The description's line-format detail does help the agent construct the category regex for grep (e.g. \[network\]), which is a modest value-add beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read console output captured from an app') and names the precondition (started with launch_app captureLogs=true), which no sibling provides. An agent can immediately distinguish this from screenshot, describe_ui, or list_apps.

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 makes the precondition for use explicit: the app must have been launched with captureLogs=true. It does not state what to do when that precondition is unmet or mention any alternative tool, but no sibling offers log access, so the routing risk is low.

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