Get Crash Log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it clearly implies a read-only inspect operation and identifies the exact log buffer. It does not mention whether the buffer is cleared, whether a device must be connected, or what happens if multiple devices are attached and `device` is omitted. The output schema covers return values, but behavioral gaps around device selection and buffer state remain.

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 compact sentence front-loads the action and resource, then appends the use-case after an em dash. No wasted words and no buried essential information.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return-value detail is not needed. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage on two parameters, the definition should at least explain the `lines` and `device` semantics and the default-device behavior. It is minimally viable but incomplete for correct invocation.

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, but it says nothing about `lines` (default 200) or `device` (default null). An agent cannot infer from the description how many lines are returned by default or how device selection works when the parameter is omitted.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('crash log buffer') and even anchors it to the underlying implementation ('logcat -b crash'). It is clearly distinct from all siblings, which are device-control or app-management tools, none of which read logs.

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 an explicit usage context: 'use this after an app crashes during QA testing to see the real stack trace.' That tells the agent when to select it, though it offers no exclusions or named alternatives.

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