capture_bugreport

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 performance characteristic (slow, minutes) and that the output is a zip written to local_path. However, it omits whether root/adb authorization or a specific device state is required, and gives no sense of size or failure conditions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the destination first and the timing caveat parenthetically; every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers destination and latency. Still missing for a device-capture operation are authorization/root prerequisites and the meaning of the unexplained serial parameter.

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% for 2 parameters. The description clarifies that local_path is the zip destination, adding value, but the optional 'serial' parameter is left entirely unexplained and must be inferred from sibling patterns.

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 ('Capture') and resource ('full bugreport zip') plus the destination parameter ('local_path'), which an agent can distinguish from logcat_* and get_crash_log siblings. It is clear but stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those narrower diagnostic siblings.

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 '(slow; can take minutes)' note hints at a cost-based tradeoff but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never names alternatives like get_crash_log or get_anr_traces that produce faster, narrower diagnostics.

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