get_crashes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the limitation on status filtering but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. It is adequate for a simple list operation but lacks depth.

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 only two sentences, with the first sentence stating purpose and optionality, and the second providing exclusions and alternatives. Every word adds value, and the purpose is 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 there are 4 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, optional filters, and what is not supported. It could mention the output structure or pagination behavior, but the schema covers limit details, so it is nearly complete.

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 only adds that filtering is optional by date range, which is consistent with the schema but does not provide additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema parameter descriptions.

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 'Returns' and the resource 'list of crash groups for an app', with optional date range filtering. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that status filtering is not supported and suggesting list_issues as an alternative.

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 explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (when status filtering is needed) and directs the agent to the alternative tool list_issues with specific parameters, which is excellent for decision-making.

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