List Crash Reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is read-only. The description adds little behavior beyond that, such as what 'available' means, whether reports are sorted, or whether the list is empty-capable. With annotations covering the safety profile, a mid-range score 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief for such a simple tool, though it borders on redundant with the title and could add useful information without becoming too long.

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 simple list tool with one well-documented parameter and read-only annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it leaves out what the returned list contains, whether items can be passed to mobile_get_crash, and any details about crash report availability. A sentence connecting this tool to mobile_get_crash would make it noticeably more 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'device' parameter, including a clear description and a pointer to mobile_list_available_devices. The main description does not discuss parameters, but the schema carries the burden adequately, so the description need not repeat it.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('crash reports') and scopes them to the device, making the basic purpose clear. It is distinguishable from the sibling mobile_get_crash by the list-vs-get operation, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus mobile_get_crash or other siblings. The only contextual hint is 'available on the device,' which weakly implies local scope, but there is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or how the returned list should be consumed.

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