get_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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is for 'Get' operations, implying read-only behavior, but fails to disclose critical traits like whether it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., text, JSON). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage context without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and deeper context needed for full understanding. With no output schema, it should ideally explain return values, but it doesn't, leaving 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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples beyond the schema's descriptions). Thus, it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('device logcat output'), and provides context about its use case ('to find crashes, exceptions, and errors after reproducing a bug'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear_logs', which might handle log management differently, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 clear context on when to use this tool ('after reproducing a bug'), which helps guide its application. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings, such as distinguishing from 'clear_logs' for log clearing or other debugging tools, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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