get_logcat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates 'snapshot' which suggests a non-streaming, non-destructive read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what the output format is, or any potential side effects or prerequisites (e.g., device connection). The description offers some insight but not comprehensive transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('Dump a snapshot') and concisely mentions the key customization options. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the simple function it describes.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential function and main parameters. It lacks explicit mention of the return value or device targeting, but the schema fills these gaps with parameter details. The absence of an output schema and annotations means the description could do more to specify the output format, but the overall context is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter, including examples for 'filterSpec'. The tool description's mention of 'custom line limits and filter criteria' merely paraphrases the schema without adding new meaning. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no significant semantic value 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 uses a specific verb 'dump' with a clear resource ('recent system logs (logcat)') and scope ('snapshot' with custom line limits and filter criteria). It clearly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'clear_logcat' which clears logs rather than retrieves them. The purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.

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 clear context: it is for retrieving recent logs with configurable limits and filters. It implies the tool is the appropriate choice when such a snapshot is needed, and there is no direct alternative among the siblings for reading logs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'clear_logcat', but the intent is still clear.

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