logcat_dump

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the buffer-vs-one-shot source behavior and defines the semantics of each filter (tags as substring match, priority as min level). It omits any note on result ordering, rate limits, or permission requirements, but for a local read tool this is solid disclosure.

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 return shape is front-loaded, then the buffer behavior, then a compact parameter legend. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the single-line parameter list is slightly run-on.

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 explained, yet the description still names the record fields helpfully. Combined with the buffer/one-shot behavior and filter semantics, the only real gap is the undocumented '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%, so the description must compensate, and it defines four of the five parameters meaningfully (tags, priority, message_contains, tail). The 'serial' parameter is never mentioned, so an agent has no guidance on how to target a specific device.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Return recent logcat lines as records') and enumerates the record shape. It clearly reads as a dump/read operation, distinguishable from the mutation-oriented siblings (logcat_start, logcat_stop, logcat_clear), though it never explicitly names the nearest alternative logcat_filter.

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 gives useful context ('Reads the running capture's buffer if active, else does a one-shot logcat -d'), which tells the agent what happens in each state. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to logcat_filter or get_crash_log, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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