get_bundler_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 clearly conveys a read-only snapshot behavior ('get recent logs') and warns against polling, but it does not disclose whether the call blocks, how logs are ordered, or any source-specific behavioral nuances. This is adequate for a simple log-fetching tool but not rich.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds the key usage caveat. Every word 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?

For a simple log-retrieval tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core use case and points to the relevant alternative. It does not describe output shape or pagination, but that is a minor gap given the straightforward nature of the tool.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the source list but adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 is explicit: it names the action ('Get'), the resource ('recent logs'), and the exact sources ('Metro bundler, Android, or iOS'). It also differentiates itself from the wait_for_log sibling by noting that waiting for a specific line is that tool's job, not this one's.

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 second sentence gives explicit routing guidance: if the goal is to wait for a specific line, use wait_for_log in a background subagent instead of polling this tool. This clearly states when not to use this tool and names the alternative.

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