Android logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: output is capped at ~300 lines/30 KB with a truncated:true flag plus a narrowing hint, the snapshot start timestamp is computed on the DEVICE clock (default last 2m), follow mode closes after duration_seconds and returns everything accumulated, and bundle_id requires a RUNNING process resolved via pidof. This is exceptionally transparent for an agent to reason about tool side effects and resource use.

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 long but every sentence carries a distinct behavioral fact — no filler, no repetition of the schema. It is front-loaded with purpose, then mode semantics, then narrowing, then output caps. Slightly dense, but each clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the input-schema documentation.

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 9-parameter, 3-enum, bound-mode tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: boundedness in both modes, return caps and truncation signal, clock semantics, buffer selection for crash/events, and the running-process prerequisite for bundle_id. Minor omissions exist (e.g., the exact full return shape beyond truncated:true), but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine behavior beyond the schema: it explains the ring-buffer persistence, default window semantics, the follow-window closing behavior, the --pid resolution mechanism behind bundle_id, and the truncation/narrowing response. These details are not in the schema and materially change how an agent would set parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Read what an Android app prints while it runs, from logcat.' It also nails the scope precisely (bounded, never unbounded), and none of the 18 sibling tools are log readers, so it is unambiguous which tool an agent should pick for log inspection.

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?

Gives clear mode-selection guidance (snapshot vs follow) with defaults and bounds, and explicitly routes crash reading to buffer:'crash'. It also advises narrowing before widening because an idle emulator emits hundreds of lines a second, and documents the fallback behavior when a bundle_id targets a non-running app ('suggests grep'). It doesn't name sibling alternatives, but no sibling competes for this job, so exclusions are unnecessary.

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