get_crash_log

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses scope (native + Java crash buffer) and ordering (newest first), but says nothing about whether the buffer is cleared after dumping, device-selection behavior, or any auth/rate considerations.

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?

One tightly written sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Backticks around `tail` tie it cleanly to the parameter name.

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?

A low-complexity, two-parameter read tool with an output schema, so return format needn't be explained. The description covers the essentials; only the meaning of `serial` and post-dump buffer state are unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies `tail` as the count of newest records returned, which adds real meaning over the bare integer, but `serial` (device targeting) is left entirely to the agent's inference.

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 ('Dump') and resource ('crash' logcat buffer), and narrows scope by naming native + Java crashes. That scoping distinguishes it from the general logcat_dump/logcat_filter siblings without needing to name them explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given the dense sibling set (logcat_dump, logcat_filter, logcat_clear, get_anr_traces), the agent gets no help choosing between this and the other log-retrieval tools.

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