get_dumpsys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only retrieval but does not state side-effects, permissions, or limitations (e.g., that packageName only works for some services). It adds no transparency beyond the basic 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its place; no wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what kind of details are returned or how results are structured. It does not. It also leaves ambiguity about interactions between serviceName and packageName (e.g., what happens if both are provided). For a tool with three optional parameters, this is a notable completeness gap.

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%, and each parameter is already well-described. The description's mention of 'service or package' lightly reinforces the two optional parameters but adds no new detail beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('system diagnostic details (dumpsys)') and clearly indicates the tool targets a service or package. This distinguishes it from sibling diagnostic tools like get_cpu_usage or get_app_memory, which focus on narrower metrics.

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 provided about when to use this tool vs. alternatives like get_cpu_usage, get_app_memory, or get_logcat. The phrase 'for a service or package' gives some context but does not explain scenarios, exclusions, or when a sibling would be more appropriate.

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