quest_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does explain significant behavior: level is minimum severity with a default, tag scopes to one tag, and pattern is a case-insensitive regex over tag+message. However, it omits behavior for device_id and lines, and does not explicitly state that this is a non-streaming one-time fetch.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds useful parameter information. There is no fluff or redundancy. The multi-line structure improves readability without adding length.

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?

The description provides the output shape and key filters, which is helpful given no output schema exists. However, it is incomplete for a 5-parameter tool with no annotations: device_id and lines are absent, and the relationship with quest_logs_stream/quest_crash_logs is not clarified. It adequately covers the main use but leaves important context gaps.

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. It does add meaningful semantics for level (V/D/I/W/E/F, minimum severity, default W), tag (scopes to one log tag), and pattern (case-insensitive regex over tag+message). However, lines and device_id are not explained at all, leaving 2 of 5 parameters without sufficient meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get recent logcat entries as structured logs'. It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like quest_logs_stream by emphasizing 'recent' one-shot retrieval. The output format (timestamp/level/tag/message) is also specified.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as quest_logs_stream or quest_crash_logs. The description explains parameter filtering but does not say when a one-shot log fetch is preferred over streaming or crash-specific logs. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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