android_logcat

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the bar for added value. The description adds two behaviors not captured by annotations: output is redacted (privacy filtering applied) and access requires explicitly-authorized Shizuku (an auth precondition). It also discloses boundedness, setting expectations that results are volume-limited rather than complete log streams.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads the core action and scoping guardrails, the second covers capabilities. Every qualifier ('bounded', 'redacted', 'explicitly-authorized', 'optional') carries operational meaning for the agent.

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?

For a simple 5-parameter read-only tool with no required params and strong safety annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, filter options, the auth precondition, and output characteristics (bounded, redacted). It does not specify what redaction removes or the failure mode when Shizuku is unauthorized, but these are minor gaps for a diagnostic read operation.

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 carries the compensation burden. It maps three of five parameters to concepts — package→packageName, tag→tag, time→sinceSeconds — and states they are optional, which matches the zero required parameters. However, it offers nothing on level (the priority enum) or lines (count bounds), leaving those to be inferred from names and defaults.

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 and resource — 'Read... logcat output' — with sharp scoping qualifiers ('bounded, redacted', 'through explicitly-authorized Shizuku') that separate it from generic shell tools like android_shizuku_shell or android_shell, even though no sibling is named. No other sibling targets logcat specifically, so an agent can identify this tool's role without opening the schema.

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 implies when to use it: when bounded, redacted logcat output is needed and Shizuku authorization is available. The phrase 'explicitly-authorized Shizuku' signals a prerequisite, and 'Supports optional...filtering' indicates the tool handles filtering internally. However, it never names an alternative or states an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so the routing guidance is left to inference.

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