get_crash_feedback

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It describes the return content but doesn't explicitly state it's a read-only operation or mention any side effects, rate limits, or permissions.

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 sentences: first one is front-loaded with purpose and response details, second one provides a direct action alternative. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema, but description outlines return fields adequately. Mentions crash log reference linking to sibling tool. Missing error handling or edge cases, but sufficient for a single-fetch tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description in schema ('Crash feedback submission ID') is clear. The tool description adds context about what the ID retrieves, but does not add new constraints or format details beyond 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 states the action 'Get' and the resource 'a single crash feedback submission by ID', listing the components of the response. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_crash_feedback' and 'get_crash_log'.

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 explicit guidance to use 'get_crash_log' for downloading the crash log text, but does not elaborate on when not to use this tool or alternative scenarios.

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