Get app errors (curated)

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: returns empty if app not running, defaults to minLevel='E', and explains PID resolution and stack trace coalescing.

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 compact (3 sentences) and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly better structured (e.g., bullet points for default exclusions and followMs).

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return format (entry with message+stackTrace[]), default behavior, and edge cases (app not running, followMs window). The parameter documentation is thorough and no critical gaps remain.

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 100% but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: default minLevel, default exclusions, the behavior of followMs (real-time listening and error if app stops), and the output format (message+stackTrace[]).

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 error-level logs for a specific Android app, filtered by package name. It distinguishes itself from the generic sibling tool devilge_get_logcat by specifying curation, stack trace coalescing, and system noise exclusion.

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 when to use (for app-specific errors) and explains real-time capture via followMs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with devilge_get_logcat, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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