crash_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the schema by disclosing the best-effort nature: unreadable pieces are surfaced in `warnings` rather than failing the whole call. It also enumerates the expected output content, which helps set agent expectations.

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?

Two well-organized sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by invocation timing and behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is strong for a read-only aggregate tool: it lists the expected return contents, states when to use it, and explains the failure mode. Minor gaps remain around parameter semantics and explicit non-destructiveness, but given the simple optional parameters, this is close to complete.

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%, and the description never mentions `max_frames` or `session_id`. The parameters have self-explanatory titles and defaults, but the description adds no semantic value about how they affect the crash report, which falls short when the schema is otherwise bare.

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 'One-call crash triage' and enumerates eight concrete pieces of collected data, making the aggregation role obvious. It clearly contrasts with sibling single-purpose read tools like read_registers, get_backtrace, disassemble, and read_memory.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Use after wait_for_stop (or after a stop notification).' It does not mention exclusions or when to prefer individual sibling tools instead, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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