inspect_lsposed

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that access happens through Root and which on-device files are read, plus that a boolean toggles framework verbose logs. It does not describe failure behavior when the lspd log directory is missing or root is unavailable, nor any size/rate constraints.

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?

Two short, front-loaded lines with the tool scope first and the diagnostic use case second. The bracketed marketing-style header and exclamation mark are mild fluff, but nothing is redundant or bloated.

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 read-only diagnostic tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the data source, root requirement, and intended diagnostic purpose. The only meaningful gap is what happens on missing root/logs, which matters for a tool that depends on a specific filesystem path.

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 all three parameters (lines, keyword, include_verbose) are already documented in the schema. The description only adds the log-source distinction (module log vs framework verbose log) and does not elaborate on keyword matching syntax or line-limit behavior, so baseline 3 is right.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: read the newest module logs from `/data/adb/lspd/log/modules_*.log` and list installed KernelSU/Zygisk modules. The 'LSPosed / Xposed / KernelSU 专属' framing separates it from generic log tools like read_logcat_smart, though no sibling is named outright and it is slightly ambiguous whether the module list is always returned alongside the logs.

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?

Gives a clear use case: verifying a hook actually took effect and detecting StackOverflowError / ClassNotFoundException style exceptions. It does not state when NOT to use it or point at alternatives (read_logcat_smart, root_shell) for non-LSPosed troubleshooting, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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