list_crash_logs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly states it is read-only and does not open or modify anything, and it discloses the environment variable override. It does not mention error handling or potential side effects beyond the read-only claim, but for a listing tool this is sufficient.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides search location, return details, and side-effect disclosure. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: what, where, ordering, return fields, directories searched, and read-only behavior. It adequately informs an agent of the full behavior without needing an output schema.

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?

There is one parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that it returns up to `limit` entries, which is essential and not provided elsewhere. It also mentions an environment variable not part of the schema. The description could also note the default behavior (default 10) explicitly, but it is present in the schema.

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 specifies the action (list), the resource (Buffout 4 crash logs), and the scope (on this machine, newest first). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_crash_log, which likely retrieves a single log's content.

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 context for when to use this tool: to list crash logs on the machine. It implies use before fetching a specific log, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The sibling tool names hint at alternatives, but the description itself could be more explicit about when not to use it.

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