logcat_filter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read-style filtering wrapper via analogy to logcat_dump, but says nothing about buffer behavior, whether it captures live or buffered logs, permissions, or how tail affects results.

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 zero filler; the tag example earns its place. Appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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, but with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is too thin to be self-sufficient. It should at least clarify tail and serial.

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 for all three params. It gives a useful example for tags (['Unity','libc','DEBUG']) but leaves tail and serial completely unexplained, so the compensation is only partial.

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 resource relationship: it is logcat_dump filtered to given tags, which cleanly separates it from logcat_dump and the other logcat_* siblings. The verb 'filtered' plus the tag example makes the operation concrete, though it is framed as a 'convenience' rather than an independent action.

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 phrase 'logcat_dump filtered to the given tags' implies you reach for this instead of logcat_dump when you only want specific tags, but it never states when-not to use it or names the alternative explicitly. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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