logcat_tail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the snapshot behavior (last N lines) and the filter semantics with an example, but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, note any prerequisites like a connected device, or clarify whether it follows the log stream or returns once. These are meaningful gaps for an annotation-free tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds a practical filter example. No wasted words; the structure is easy to parse and directly useful.

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 the output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, with 0% schema coverage, the missing semantics for lines and serial make the definition incomplete. It is adequate for an agent that already knows Android terminology, but has clear documentation gaps.

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. It explains filter_tag well with a concrete syntax example, but lines and serial receive no explanation. The agent is left guessing what 'serial' means and how lines behaves beyond its default, which is a significant gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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 operation ('az utolso N sor a rendszernaplobol') and the resource (logcat), and adds the debugging context. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, likely because no sibling tool does the same thing.

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 phrase 'hibakereseshez' (for debugging) gives a clear use context, and the filter_tag explanation with a concrete example tells the agent how to narrow results. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but there are no evident log-reading siblings, so the context is sufficient.

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