android_crashes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing stack-frame-to-source mapping and the creation of a self-contained markdown brief for a fixer subagent. It also clarifies the 'only since last check' state and the physical-device default. It stops short of stating whether any persistent state is modified, but 'Show' strongly signals a read-only operation.

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 tightly organized with a two-sentence behavioral overview followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler, and the most important output behavior is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete: it covers all parameters, defaults, what output looks like, and how it benefits a fixer subagent. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool's result is left unexplained.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. Every one of the five parameters gets a meaningful one-line explanation beyond its schema name, including important defaults and behavioral nuances such as 'project_dir' being the Gradle root for frame mapping and 'only_new' referencing automatic checks by interaction tools.

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 and resource: 'Show recent crashes and ANRs...with stack traces.' It explicitly enumerates Java exceptions, native signals, and not-responding, which sharply distinguishes it from general-purpose siblings like android_logcat. The added detail about mapping frames to source files and writing a fixer brief makes the tool's role unmistakable.

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 implies this is the tool for crash/ANR investigation and gives useful defaults, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives such as android_logcat or android_analyze. The only_new parameter offers partial usage context by mentioning interaction tools check automatically, but no direct 'use this when...' guidance is present.

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