metro_logs

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the transparency burden. It discloses auto-discovery behavior, app selection reporting, and file saving. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., app must be connected) and side effects, and does not detail output format.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for agent consumption.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers main functionality, auto-discovery, and save option. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, and prerequisites, leaving some 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that omitting webSocketDebuggerUrl triggers auto-discovery and that saveTo writes a timeline file for evidence, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool reads console logs from a React Native app via Metro CDP debugger. It specifies the verb 'reads' and the resource 'console logs', distinguishing it from sibling tools like metro_network and metro_state.

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 provides guidance on using auto-discovery vs. providing a URL, and mentions the optional saveTo parameter for evidence. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to siblings or state when not to use it.

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