get_crash_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a read of Apple's linked betaCrashLogs resource and that the payload is full symbolicated .crash text, but it omits failure behavior (e.g., what happens when no crash log is attached) and any auth/permission 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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the action and payload. Both sentences earn their place, though the second is somewhat explanatory rather than instructive.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by telling the agent what the return value is (logText, symbolicated .crash). Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation, though error/none-attached behavior is unaddressed.

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 there is a single required feedback_id fully described in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description names the submission concept but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb (Download) and resource (crash log text) scoped to a crash feedback submission, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It contrasts only implicitly with the sibling get_crash_feedback (metadata vs. log payload), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied: call it when you need the raw log text for a given feedback submission. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no routing to alternatives like get_crash_feedback or get_diagnostic_logs despite those siblings existing.

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