start_device_log_cap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool starts a session and returns a session ID, which is useful. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's resource-intensive, how long logs are captured, or if there are rate limits, which are important for a tool that initiates ongoing processes.

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 front-loads the core action and resource, followed by the mechanism and return value. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (initiates log capture with ongoing implications), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and return value but misses behavioral context like session management, error handling, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., 'stop_device_log_cap'), leaving gaps for an agent to infer usage safely.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 the specific action ('Starts capturing logs'), target resource ('specified Apple device'), and mechanism ('by launching the app with console output'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_sim_log_cap' by specifying device types and from 'launch_app_device' by emphasizing log capture rather than just launching.

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 implies usage when log capture is needed from Apple devices, with a prerequisite that deviceId should be 'obtained from list_devices' (mentioned in schema). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'start_sim_log_cap' for simulators or 'launch_app_device' for launching without logs, leaving some ambiguity.

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