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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains the resolution mechanism (atos on host), what happens for unresolvable frames (returned as-is), and the platform-specific prerequisites (Xcode DeviceSupport, .dSYM UUID matching). It doesn't mention potential errors, performance characteristics, or output format, but the key behavioral caveats are well 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?

The description is a single dense but well-organized paragraph. It front-loads the primary mechanism, then covers system frames, app frames, edge cases (unresolvable), and defaults. It's information-dense but every sentence contributes value. Slightly long but justified given the multi-faceted behavioral caveats.

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 complexity of symbolication (host tools, .dSYM matching, Xcode DeviceSupport prerequisites, faulting-thread default), the description covers the essential operational aspects thoroughly. No output schema exists, so the description could have noted the return format, but the description is otherwise comprehensive for a moderately complex 4-parameter 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the id (crash report from ios_crash_analytics) and dsymPath (matched by Mach-O UUID) semantics beyond the schema. It doesn't add detail about udid or allThreads beyond what the schema already provides, but the description's enrichment of the two more nuanced parameters is adequate.

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 tool's purpose: symbolicate a crash report, resolving stack frames from imageName+offset into symbol+offset (file:line) using atos. It specifies the input source (id from ios_crash_analytics) and distinguishes clearly from sibling tools like ios_crash_list, ios_crash_analytics, and ios_crash_detail which analyze/discover crashes rather than symbolicate them.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: the id comes from ios_crash_analytics, app frames resolve only when a matching .dSYM is provided via dsymPath, and system frames resolve from Xcode's DeviceSupport symbols only when the device was prepared. It also states the default behavior (only faulting thread) and how to change it (allThreads). This gives clear when-to-use and prerequisite context.

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