Get Crash Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns the crash report's 'full content,' but does not disclose details like response format or whether the report is returned in raw form. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences with no redundant wording. The primary action is front-loaded and the useful pointer to the sibling list tool is included without extra fluff.

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 two-parameter read-only retrieval tool with fully documented schema properties and appropriate annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could mention what kind of content the crash report contains or the response shape since there is no output schema, but the core instructions for invoking the tool are all present.

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 schema already documents both 'id' and 'device.' The description reinforces that the ID identifies the crash report, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('full content of a crash report'), and the lookup key ('by its ID'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling listing tool by referencing mobile_list_crashes, so an agent can tell retrieval apart from enumeration.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use mobile_list_crashes to find available crash IDs, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives beyond the list step, but for a simple get-by-ID tool that is sufficient.

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