emu_logs

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 explains the bounded streaming, optional early cut on pattern match, and clamping to max_bytes, including the resulting 'matched' and 'truncated' flags. It does not cover error scenarios or return format, but the output schema likely handles that.

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 opening line is a concise summary, and the second paragraph provides detailed parameter behavior in just two sentences. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 log retrieval tool, the description covers the core behavior and parameters succinctly. The presence of an output schema shifts the burden of return-value documentation, so the description is sufficiently complete, though it omits details like log ordering or what happens if the pattern is never found.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: 'seconds' limits duration, 'until_pattern' triggers early termination, and 'max_bytes' clamps the result size. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states 'Capture emulator logs' and immediately adds the key qualifier 'bounded — never a firehose,' which distinguishes it from other emulator tools like emu_screenshot or emu_input. It is specific about the resource and the action.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. While the description implies its use for collecting logs, it does not explain when to choose this over other logging approaches or any exclusions.

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