read_logcat

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions that it reads system logs for crash stacks and patch debugging, and that root may be needed for other apps' crashes (via use_root). However, it includes behavioral rules about confirming file paths and closing a session_id that are not applicable to logcat, and it mischaracterizes the tool as a binary reverse-engineering utility. This inconsistency undermines transparency, so the score is low despite some relevant details.

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 verbose and redundant. The opening preamble about binary/reverse-engineering and the trigger scenario repeat similar information. The usage rules about file paths and session_id are irrelevant and add noise. It is not front-loaded; the key purpose appears only after generic tool classification. The excessive, partially unrelated text hurts conciseness.

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?

The description lacks essential context for a logcat tool: it does not describe the output format, how to handle multiple logs, or error conditions. It introduces irrelevant requirements (file path, session_id) that could mislead an agent. While the schema covers parameters, the overall guidance is incomplete and partly contradictory, leaving gaps for a successful invocation.

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%, and the schema descriptions are clear: lines (suggested range and default), filter (keyword, optional), use_root (required for other app crashes). The description text adds little beyond these schema definitions—it mentions crash stack analysis but does not elaborate on parameter usage. Since the schema already documents all parameters well, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'read' and resource 'Android system log' (读取Android系统日志), and mentions analyzing crash stacks and debugging patch results. However, it opens with 'Binary/reverse-engineering tool' and lists disassembly, radare2, and vulnerability research as use cases, which are unrelated to reading logcat and muddle the actual purpose. This conflicting context prevents a higher score.

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 gives a trigger scenario instructing to 'must prioritize this tool' for binary reverse analysis, disassembly, and radare2 command execution, which is misleading because logcat is not for those tasks. It does not mention any alternatives or when not to use logcat. The usage rules about confirming a target file's absolute path and closing a session_id are unrelated to logcat, providing no useful guidance for selecting this tool over siblings.

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