adb_logcat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the command returns a snapshot rather than a live stream, and implicitly that it is a read operation on the device. However, it does not mention output format, buffer behavior, or any device-selection caveats, which would add valuable 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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and resource, then immediately clarifies the important non-live-stream behavior. There is no fluff or repetition, and the key semantic distinction is placed where it will be read first.

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?

For a simple read-only logcat tool, the description plus schema covers the core invocation details: buffer, device connection, snapshot semantics, lines, filter, and workspace. However, there is no output schema and no description of the return value, and the undocumented `deviceSerial` parameter weakens completeness for multi-device scenarios.

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 already documents three of four parameters, so the description does not need to deeply explain them. Still, the description adds no parameter-level meaning, and the `deviceSerial` parameter remains undocumented in both the schema and the description, creating a small gap that an agent must infer.

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 action and resource ('Dump and tail the current logcat buffer') and clarifies the non-live nature with 'a snapshot, not a live stream'. This distinguishes it from any potential streaming or shell-based log retrieval path, even though no sibling is logcat-specific.

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 establishes clear context: it reads from a connected device, acts on the current buffer, and explicitly excludes live streaming. It does not name an alternative tool or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the snapshot-vs-live distinction is enough to guide an agent choosing between this and a shell-based approach.

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