logcat_crashes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting 'bounded', 'recent', and 'allowlisted' — constraints that are not obvious from the name or annotations. However, it does not specify the exact bound (e.g., number of items, time window) or the behavior for non-allowlisted packages, so it is not fully transparent.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the core action ('Return bounded recent crash and ANR evidence') followed by the scope ('for an allowlisted package'). There is no redundant or filler content; every word earns its place.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it conveys what the tool returns, the restriction, and the bounded nature. However, it does not describe the exact output format or the meaning of 'bounded', which would be helpful for an agent to interpret the result, but the simplicity of the tool lowers the need for extensive extra detail.

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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter package_name. The description mentions 'allowlisted package', which adds context about a restriction, but does not detail the package_name format or provide examples. Since there is only one parameter and its name is fairly self-explanatory, the description provides minimal but adequate compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly states a resource scope: 'crash and ANR evidence for an allowlisted package.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like logcat_capture, which captures general logcat output, by focusing specifically on crashes and ANRs for a single package.

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 implies a specific use case (getting crash/ANR evidence) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like logcat_capture. It lacks exclusion criteria or explicit 'use this when...' guidance, so the context is implied rather than clearly defined.

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