analyze_crash

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: live device log checking, support for .ips/.crash files, symbolication handling, and default time range. It does not mention if logs are modified or output specifics, but the core behaviors are transparent.

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 three concise sentences, each providing essential information: general purpose, platform support, and special iOS features. No redundancy or filler language.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: platforms, log sources, optional parameters, and specific behaviors like symbolication. It lacks details on the output format or what 'identify crash patterns' returns, but remains sufficiently complete for typical analysis tasks.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying platform-specific constraints (e.g., crashLogPath is iOS only, optional for live), default values (timeRangeSeconds default 300), and behavior (skipSymbolication default false).

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 tool's purpose: analyze crash logs and device logs to identify crash patterns and root causes. It specifies support for both Android and iOS with relevant log sources, distinguishing it from siblings like inspect_logs.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (crash analysis) and specifics about platforms, log file types, and live analysis. It implies use cases but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives to siblings like inspect_logs.

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