Get Android app logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that output is 'bounded' and 'filtered to current process IDs,' which provides useful context beyond annotations but does not elaborate on rate limits or system impact. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence of 18 words, front-loading the key action and scope. Every word contributes, and there is no redundancy.

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 simplicity, high-quality annotations, and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and limitations (bounded, filtered). Slightly more detail on parameter defaults or output format would push it to a 5.

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 low (25%), but the description clarifies that the 'package' parameter filters logs and that 'maxLines' imposes a bound. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though level and serial are not individually explained.

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 verb ('Read'), resource ('logcat output'), and scope ('bounded, filtered to requested or foreground application's current process IDs'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like android_take_screenshot or android_tap, as none of those handle 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when logs for a specific or foreground app are needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, since no sibling tool performs a similar function, the guidance is adequate.

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