List Crash Reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scope 'on the device' but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format or ordering. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate for the minimal added context.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's function. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 simple, one-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It could optionally mention that the returned crash reports could be used with 'mobile_get_crash,' but this is not strictly necessary given the tool's simplicity and the lack of 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'device' already has a helpful description with a pointer to a companion tool. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'crash reports' and scope 'on the device,' making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'mobile_get_crash,' which likely retrieves a single crash, by focusing on the listing action.

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 input schema description provides usage guidance by directing the user to 'mobile_list_available_devices' to find valid device identifiers. However, the tool description itself does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like 'mobile_get_crash,' though the use case is clear from the context.

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