query_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: the output is bounded at 500 lines and results are ordered newest-last. It omits the safety profile (read-only), any permission/auth requirements, and what happens when the boot index is out of range, so it is only partially transparent.

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 core purpose and the 500-line bound are front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact one-line-per-parameter glossary. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are rightly omitted, and the pagination/limit behavior is covered. But with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage and no annotations, three parameters (tag, tail, session) are undefined anywhere, leaving the agent to guess at how to scope a query to a tag or session.

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, and it explains four of seven parameters with real semantics: boot's literal '-1' sentinel, level's E/W/I/D/V scale, grep's case-insensitive substring matching, and collapse_repeats' fold-into-count behavior. That is substantive meaning the schema does not carry. It leaves tag, tail and session entirely undocumented, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Query captured device logs") with scope qualifier "captured" and an ordering note ("newest last"). It reads distinctly from siblings like list_boots, get_crash and list_capture_sessions. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer for related tasks (e.g. crash retrieval), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope (query log lines) and reinforced by the inline recommendation "boot: -1 for the latest boot cycle (recommended)", which is genuine when-to-use guidance for one parameter. However, no conditions for choosing this tool over list_boots, get_crash or summarize_session are given, and no exclusions are stated.

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