list_frequent_crashes

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions output fields (counts, date) but fails to disclose behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, performance implications, or the fact that the plugin parameter is conditionally required (this is only in the schema, not the description). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences long with no redundant words. It effectively communicates the tool's operation and recommended use. Front-loaded with the main action and output, making it easy to scan.

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?

With 6 parameters all described in the schema and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete. However, it lacks information on the return format (e.g., list of objects, how grouping is represented) and does not address pagination or error states. Given the tool's complexity (aggregated crash data), more detail on output structure 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%, so baseline is 3. The description itself does not add further parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'grouped by function' hints at grouping but does not detail parameter usage). The schema already describes each parameter adequately, so description does not need to compensate.

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 'List' and the resource 'frequent crash locations for a plugin', and specifies the output grouping by function with counts and date. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'list_recent_crashes' or 'search_crashes', which limits 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?

The description includes 'Use this to find the top crashes,' which implies a use case but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_crashes or get_crash_stats). No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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