previewapk_get_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that logs remain readable after session end via a saved tail of the last session, which is real added context. However, it says nothing about defaults (e.g., 100 lines), retention limits, or whether the log is cumulative across relaunches.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then usage, then the session-end caveat. Every sentence contributes, though the phrasing is slightly conversational rather than maximally tight.

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 log tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the post-session availability, which is the essential context. It leaves gaps on the filter parameters and default behavior that an agent would need to invoke it well.

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 only 40% (lines, device and errors_only are undocumented), and the description mentions no parameters at all — it never explains filtering by line count, device, or errors-only mode. With 5 parameters and low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the gaps.

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 (Read) and resource (the attached app's debug log / logcat) and enumerates the content it surfaces: prints, warnings, errors and crash traces. An agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like previewapk_hierarchy, previewapk_screenshot or previewapk_status, which cover different artifacts.

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?

Explicitly says when to reach for it: 'Check it after actions and whenever something misbehaves: a crash's exact reason is here.' It also clarifies a non-obvious edge case (works after the session ends via the saved tail). No when-not guidance or named alternatives, but no sibling duplicates this capability, so the routing gap is minor.

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