get_crash_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses default behavior (newest log), refusal conditions for invalid paths, the specific return fields (exception, call stack, plugin list, etc.), the stack truncation to 50 lines, and the exact error payload when no logs are found. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, followed by path behavior, validation constraints, return contents, truncation notice, and error case. Every sentence carries essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (parses crash logs into multiple sections) and the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values, error handling, and edge cases. It also hints at integration with list_crash_logs, making it complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 only parameter, 'path', has a schema that just says string/null with a default. The description adds deep semantic meaning: what happens when omitted (newest log), how to specify a particular log (from list_crash_logs), and validation rules (must be inside crash-log folders or named crash-*.log). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 function: 'Parse a Buffout 4 crash log into structured sections.' It uses a specific verb ('parse'), specifies the resource ('Buffout 4 crash log'), and indicates the output format ('structured sections'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_crash_logs, which lists logs, and diagnose_crash, which presumably analyzes causes.

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 provides clear usage context: without a path it automatically selects the newest log, and with an explicit path it parses that specific log. It also gives constraints (paths must be crash logs) and references list_crash_logs as a source for paths. It does not explicitly compare with other siblings like diagnose_crash, but the context is clear enough for typical use.

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