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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses that it returns a classified delta by default and raw lines with level, plus PID scoping and the since_last_action window. It is a read-only operation, which is appropriate. Could mention that response format is defined in the output schema.

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 well-structured with a default behavior paragraph and an Args section. Each sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, default behavior, and parameters well. It does not describe output format, but that is handled by the output schema. Slightly incomplete regarding potential side effects or performance implications, but adequate.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: lines (max lines when not scoping to last action), level (minimum priority for raw), since_last_action (scope window). Adds meaning beyond schema types.

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 explicitly states it queries app logcat PID-scoped to the current app, distinguishing default behavior (classified delta) from raw filtered lines with level. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_map and tap_element.

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 explains when to use default mode vs raw mode ('With level set') and the role of lines parameter ('when not scoping to the last action'). However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full responsibility. It mentions the map is built automatically, implying it is a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or detail other behaviors like output format. Adequate but not thorough.

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: first states main purpose, second elaborates on contents and usage. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key action.

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 zero parameters, an output schema exists (not shown), and complexity is low, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, its contents, and its purpose.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so description need not add parameter details. With 100% schema coverage (nonexistent params), baseline is 4, and description appropriately adds no extraneous param info.

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 it returns the learned app map with specific contents (screens, transitions) and uses a verb 'Return' with a clear resource. It is well-distinguished from siblings 'get_logs' and 'tap_element'.

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 use for planning before interacting with the device ('so you can plan against a map before touching the device'). It does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the re-resolution behavior and mentions the return values. However, it does not discuss potential side effects (e.g., triggering navigation, destructive actions), authorization needs, or rate limits. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool that performs an action.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the core action, then explains behavior in edge cases, and finally details parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 presence of an output schema (indicated by 'has output schema: true'), the description does not need to detail return values, but it still mentions them. The description covers the main functionality and an important edge case (re-resolution). However, it does not address error conditions or input validation, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

The description explains the purpose of each parameter clearly: 'element' is an element id from a recent screen state with an example, and 'x'/'y' are pixel coordinates used only if not using element. It also states the preferred usage (element over coordinates). Given that schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('tap') and the resource ('element'), and explicitly distinguishes between two methods (by id or by raw coordinates). It also mentions what the tool returns (new screen state and log delta). There is no ambiguity given the sibling tools are 'get_logs' and 'get_map', which are clearly different actions.

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 provides context on when re-resolution occurs if the target moved or vanished, which guides the agent on how to handle stale elements. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or specify any prerequisites or constraints. The guidance is helpful but not exhaustive.

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