dumpsys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output shape ('raw text (capped)'), but says nothing about the read-only/diagnostic nature, side effects, permission requirements, or error behavior. It adds some context but is not rich 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the command form and examples, with zero wasted words. The scoping caveat is placed at the end where it reads naturally.

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 needn't be detailed, and the 'raw text (capped)' note is a bonus. But for a four-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description should say more about `args` and `serial` to be complete.

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 all four parameters. The description gives valuable examples for the required `service` param and hints at `max_chars` via 'capped,' but `args` and `serial` are left completely undocumented in both schema and description, so it only partially compensates.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Run `dumpsys <service>`') and concretely distinguishes itself from `run_shell` with 'not an arbitrary shell.' However it does not resolve overlap with siblings like get_battery, get_meminfo, or list_services, whose examples ('battery', 'meminfo') it echoes, so sibling differentiation is partial.

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?

'Scoped to a service name — not an arbitrary shell' implies the agent should use run_shell for arbitrary commands, giving a negative-scoping hint. But it never explicitly states when to prefer this over the overlapping diagnostic siblings (get_battery, get_meminfo), leaving usage to inference.

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