flipper_log

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the non-destructive read operation described. The description adds that the capture is for a fixed number of seconds, but does not disclose return format or behavior at the 60-second limit. With annotation baseline, a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core action and purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context for a developer to understand functionality. However, it could mention that logs are returned as plain text or how output is presented, though not strictly necessary for selection.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., port, level, duration). No additional guidance on format or usage is given.

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 clearly states the tool captures the live log stream for a fixed duration, specifically for watching an app's FURI_LOG output. This action is distinct from sibling tools, none of which focus on log capture.

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 indicates the tool is useful for watching app output while running, providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like flipper_read_file or flipper_cli for log retrieval.

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