search_crashes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose any permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The description only states what it does, not behavioral implications.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. Every word is informative, and there is no redundancy or extraneous text. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is somewhat sparse. It does not explain return format, pagination, or the behavior when 'plugin' is omitted. However, it covers the core functionality adequately for a search tool with clear schema documentation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that text matches against crash filename and function name, which aids understanding of the 'text' parameter. However, no additional semantic detail beyond the schema is provided for the 'limit' or 'plugin' parameters.

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 ('Search') and resource ('a plugin's crash reports'), and specifies the matching fields (crash filename and function name). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_recent_crashes which list without text matching.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_recent_crashes or get_crash_log. The description implies a search use case but does not provide criteria or exclusion conditions.

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