Get device logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior (automatic crash & ANR detection, platform support) but omits important traits like return format, whether logs are streamed or snapshot, and error behavior. This partial transparency aligns with a mid-range score.

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 sentences, no fluff: the first states the core action and platform scope, the second lists filtering dimensions. The description is front-loaded with the decisive verb 'Fetch' and every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return value. It never states what the tool returns (text, list, file path) nor provides caveats like buffer limits or asynchronous behavior. This is a clear gap for a 5-parameter device tool without annotations.

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 20% (device_id). The description adds meaning to the remaining parameters by mapping 'app_id', 'substring' (filter), 'time window' (since_seconds), and 'line cap' (max_lines), effectively explaining their purpose. It doesn't specify types or defaults, so not a 5.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Fetch recent device logs') and adds distinguishing detail (Android logcat / iOS unified log, crash & ANR detection). It clearly separates this tool from all siblings, none of which handle log retrieval.

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?

It conveys clear context: this is the go-to tool for fetching device logs, with filtering options (app_id, substring, time window, line cap) that suggest common use cases. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but since no sibling tool serves this purpose, the context itself is sufficient.

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