device.pull_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 does not mention side effects (e.g., whether clearAfter clears the log buffer), prerequisites such as a connected device or adb access, or what 'into artifacts' means for the caller. The vague 'when available' clause adds little concrete behavioral information.

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 short, front-loaded with the main action, and has no filler. The second sentence is somewhat awkward ('package pid', 'when available') and could be clearer, but it does not bloat the definition.

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 tool with four undocumented optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, two sentences are insufficient. The agent is left to guess which optional parameters matter, whether a serial is needed, what the artifact output looks like, and what constraints apply to logcat collection.

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%, and the description only vaguely touches one parameter via 'filter by package pid when available'. serial, clearAfter, and outputPath are left entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot determine their meaning, defaults, or how they interact.

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 verb ('Pull'), a specific resource ('Android logcat'), and a concrete outcome ('into artifacts'), which separates it from iOS- or build-log tools such as ios.collect_logs or build.collect_build_logs. The optional filter sentence adds scope without obscuring the primary 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?

The phrase 'Android logcat' implies the tool is for Android device logs, which gives some selection context relative to iOS/build log siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and domain.

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