get_diagnostic_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: call stack trees are stripped by default for size, and toggling include_call_stacks to true returns symbolicated stacks with blame frames. However, it does not mention error behavior, authorization needs, or what happens when an invalid signature_id is given, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences with no fluff: the first states the core purpose and the output fields, the second explains the default behavior and the opt-in flag. It is front-loaded and every part earns its place.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does a solid job describing what the return contains (metadata fields, Apple insights with documentation links) and the call stack behavior. The few missing pieces, such as error handling or pagination notes, are minor for a straightforward fetch tool whose parameters are otherwise fully described.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value for include_call_stacks by explaining why it is stripped by default and that setting it to true returns 'symbolicated call stacks with the blame frames', which exceeds the schema's brief description. It does not add much for limit or signature_id, but those are already well-documented.

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 uses a specific verb–resource pair ('Get… diagnostic logs for a diagnostic signature') and details the returned content (per-log metadata, Apple's insights, documentation links). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_diagnostic_signatures (which lists signatures) and get_crash_log (which is crash-specific), without ambiguity.

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 the usage context—call it after you have a diagnostic signature—but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as get_crash_log or get_screenshot_feedback. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or differentiations, so it is adequate but not strong.

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