play_get_top_anr_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load for behavioral transparency. It accurately conveys a non-mutating read operation ('Retrieve') and adds that stack traces are 'cleaned' and 'representative', but it does not disclose any limitations, permission expectations, or edge cases. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 extremely brief and front-loaded with the 'One-Shot Diagnosis' label followed by the core action and return items. Every sentence contributes meaning; no fluff. It is an efficient two-part sentence that fully conveys purpose without 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately lists the key return contents (affected user counts, occurrence rates, representative stack traces). It does not mention failure modes, pagination, or prerequisites, but for a tool with only optional parameters and a single summary action, this coverage is fairly 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 100%, so the baseline is 3 per the calibration. The description does not add meaning to any parameter (it doesn't mention 'limit' or 'package_name' or 'credentials_path'), and it does not compensate beyond the 'top' summary concept. No benefit over the schema is provided.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a distinct resource ('top ANR error clusters'), and names concrete outputs (affected user counts, occurrence rates, representative cleaned main-thread stack traces). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like play_get_error_reports or play_search_error_issues, which do not promise a summarized 'top clusters' view.

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 'One-Shot Diagnosis' label and 'Eliminates back-and-forth round trips' provide implied usage direction (when you want a quick, consolidated diagnosis). However, there are no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no advice about when to prefer play_get_error_reports or play_search_error_issues.

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