读取筛选后的移动端日志

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds that logs are standardized native logs and filterable by level/text, but it does not disclose output format, behavior when no device is connected, or pagination. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though slightly terse given the number of parameters and absence of an output schema.

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?

Missing output format (no output schema), meaning of preset/source enums, the required targetId role, and when to prefer sibling tools. Annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile, but the description alone does not give an agent enough context to call the tool correctly in non-obvious situations.

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 only mentions level and text filtering, roughly covering 'level' and 'search'. It leaves targetId, preset, source, and limit unexplained despite six parameters and three enums. This is insufficient compensation for zero schema coverage.

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 ('standardized native logs of the connected physical device'), and cites level/text filtering. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as mobile_read_evidence.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mobile_read_evidence, mobile_capture, or mobile_doctor. The only clue is the tool name and the word 'logs', which leaves the routing decision to inference.

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