Read device logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the destructive side effect that 'clear empties the log first', which is the most important trait to surface, but it omits return-format behavior, default line count, and multi-device handling.

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?

Three short sentences, zero padding, with the core purpose front-loaded and the destructive caveat last. Every sentence adds 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?

For a 6-parameter read tool with no output schema, this covers the essential surface: what is read, how it can be filtered, and the one destructive flag. Only the return shape and device-selection nuance remain unaddressed, and 'serial' is already documented in the schema.

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 67%, and the description fills the main gaps by explaining that 'package' scopes to one app, 'level' is a minimum threshold, 'crashes' restricts to the crash buffer, and 'clear' wipes the log first — the two undocumented params (package, clear) are both covered. It stops short of syntax or format details.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read logcat'), which immediately separates it from the phone_* action/test/shell siblings. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative log tool, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 filtering options imply when to use each mode (package filter, level threshold, crashes-only), so a caller can infer usage. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over phone_shell or phone_app, nor on prerequisites like an attached device.

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