get_crash_recovery

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

The description claims the tool 'enables' crash recovery, which is a write operation, but the tool name and empty input schema indicate it is a read-only getter. This is deeply misleading. With no annotations to clarify, the description actively contradicts the expected behavior.

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 relatively short but poorly structured. It mixes a contradictory purpose statement with parameter-like details. It could be cleaner by stating explicitly that it retrieves the current crash recovery mode and then explaining the possible values.

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 that there are no annotations or output schema, the description should clearly explain what the tool returns and that it is a read operation. It fails to do this, instead using language that implies a write. The mention of values is helpful but incomplete without confirming that it is a getter.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per the guidelines, baseline is 4. However, the description adds something by listing possible values (BEEP, DISARM, OFF) and the default, which provides some meaning about the output. But the confusion over whether this is a getter or setter reduces the value to a 3.

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 says 'Get crash_recovery: Enable crash recovery,' which is contradictory: 'Get' implies retrieving a value, but 'Enable' suggests setting or modifying. It does not clearly state that the tool reads the current crash recovery mode setting. The mention of BEEP, DISARM, and OFF further confuses, as these are configuration values, not actions.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'set_crash_recovery'. The description lacks any context about appropriate usage scenarios, prerequisites, or differentiation between reading and writing crash recovery settings.

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