lldb_analyze_crash

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about what the analysis provides (backtrace, registers, variables, modules), but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or detailed behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet points detailing outputs and clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity, the description is complete enough: it explains the purpose, lists analysis outputs, references parameters, and specifies the return type. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, and an output schema implied by the Returns section, no critical information is missing for effective tool selection.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description minimally references parameters ('executable path and optional core file'), but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the input schema already defines in detail for executable, core_file, response_format, and working_dir. The baseline is appropriate given the schema's comprehensive parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('analyze a crashed program or core dump') and resource ('crashed program or core dump'), distinguishing it from siblings like lldb_backtrace or lldb_registers by emphasizing comprehensive crash analysis rather than isolated debugging operations.

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 implicitly suggests usage for crash investigation ('to determine the cause'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lldb_backtrace or lldb_examine_variables, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for its use.

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