get_crash_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the URL resolution step, which adds helpful context. However, it does not disclose potential limits like URL expiration, required authentication, or error handling (e.g., what happens if the submission doesn't exist).

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 concise sentences that front-load the action. Every word adds value; no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 covers the basic workflow but omits details about the output format, size limits, error cases, or potential delays. Given no output schema and no annotations, more completeness is expected for a tool that performs a fetch operation.

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?

The schema fully describes the single parameter (feedback_id) with a basic description. The tool description adds important context by explaining that the tool resolves a temporary URL and fetches the log content, clarifying the parameter's role beyond just 'Crash feedback submission ID'.

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 verb 'download', the resource 'crash log text', and specifies the context 'for a crash feedback submission'. It also mentions the internal step of resolving a temporary URL, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_crash_feedback.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_crash_feedback or list_crash_feedback. It only implies usage when a crash feedback submission ID is available, but does not provide exclusions or contextual cues.

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