clear_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool clears a buffer (a destructive action), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens if no device is specified, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (a destructive operation with one optional parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description does well by stating the purpose and usage context. However, it could improve by mentioning potential side effects or confirmation of success, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the optional 'device_id' parameter. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but since there's only one parameter and it's optional, the baseline is high. No additional semantic value is added, but the schema suffices.

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 specific action ('Clear the logcat buffer') and resource ('logs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_logs' which presumably retrieves logs rather than clearing them. It provides a concrete verb+resource combination that is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'before reproducing a bug to get clean logs.' This provides clear context for usage and implicitly suggests alternatives (e.g., not using it when you want to preserve existing logs), making it highly actionable for an agent.

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