manage_platform_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains the PID-based filtering behavior, the fallback to ReactNative/AndroidRuntime tag filtering, and the noise consequences. It does not mention return values or stop-tool edge cases, but the core behavioral branches are disclosed.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The most important information is front-loaded: what the tool does, when it is needed, and how to use the key Android parameters for optimal filtering.

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 7-parameter control tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the necessary operational decisions: manual vs auto mode, Android filtering modes, and fallback behavior. It does not elaborate on iOS-specific behavior or stop semantics, but the critical guidance for correct invocation is present.

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 already documents all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between deviceId and packageId and by describing what happens when packageId is omitted, which is not inferable from individual parameter descriptions.

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 pair ('start/stop platform log capture') and immediately clarifies that this is only a manual override because capture 'auto-starts with bundler'. This distinguishes it from bundler/log retrieval siblings and from the bare tool name.

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 gives clear context on when manual invocation is needed by noting auto-start with the bundler, and it provides precise conditions for Android usage: pass both deviceId and packageId for PID-based filtering, or fall back to tag filtering. It does not explicitly name alternative log-reading tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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