logcat

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It describes the clear parameter as destructive to buffer and filter behavior (case-insensitive). However, it lacks disclosure of potential side effects like buffer clearing without fetching or system impact, so it's partial.

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 description is concise: a one-line purpose, a sentence of usage context, and a parameter list. Every sentence adds value 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?

With an output schema present, return value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and a key use case. It is complete for debugging tasks, though it could mention that logcat is a system buffer.

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%, but the description adds meaning: explains filter (case-insensitive), lines (number of recent lines, default 100), and clear (buffer clearing). This goes beyond the schema's type/default info.

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 'Get Android logcat output' which is a clear verb+resource. It also provides context 'debugging crashes after script injection', distinguishing it from other sibling tools that are not logging-related.

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 description explicitly says 'Useful for debugging crashes after script injection', indicating when to use. While no alternatives or when-not are given, the context is clear and there is no other logging tool among siblings, so it's adequate.

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