get_crash_stats

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Get' implying read-only, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, rate limits, or data freshness. More transparency would improve this score.

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 sentence that efficiently lists the key return elements with no redundancy or unnecessary 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description lists the types of statistics but does not specify the output structure or format. Additional detail on the breakdowns (e.g., nested objects or separate fields) would improve completeness.

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% and provides clear guidance on the 'plugin' parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 'Get aggregate crash statistics for a plugin' with specific verb and resource, and lists distinct statistics (total, last 7/30 days, unique functions, breakdowns), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_crash_log or list_frequent_crashes.

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 implies usage for aggregate stats and the input schema for 'plugin' provides guidance on when to provide it (omit if only one plugin, otherwise required with reference to list_plugins). However, no explicit when-not or alternatives to other crash-related tools are stated.

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