android_logcat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden.; it does so well by disclosing that clear_first clears the buffer instead of reading and returns immediately, that grep is applied after retrieval, and that device defaults to the first physical device. It could go slightly further by describing the output shape, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a targeted routing note, and a clean args list. No sentence is wasted, and the most important behavioral facts are front-loaded before the parameter details.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all parameters principal behavior, defaults, and the key alternative tool. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but for a log-reading tool the output is largely self-evident; the completeness is high.

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 fully compensate for parameter meaning, and it does. Each parameter gets a meaningful explanation: package scopes to the app's pid, device is a serial with a default, lines are trailing lines, grep is case-insensitive and post-hoc, and clear_first changes the action from reading to clearing.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read recent logcat', and immediately states a key scoping detail ('scoped to one app's process by default'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling android_crashes by naming the crash/ANR use case, so an agent can tell the tools apart without inspecting schemas.

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?

It explicitly says 'For crashes and ANRs prefer android_crashes', giving a clear when-not-to-use condition and an alternative. It also clarifies how to broaden or narrow scope ('Omit for all output' vs package scoping), which is practical usage guidance.

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