quest_crash_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the source (system dropbox), ordering (most recent first), and content (full stack trace), which adds useful context. Yet it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, device prerequisites, or the outcome when parameters are omitted.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful details about what is returned and how to filter.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks guidance on default behavior (e.g., all devices) and does not differentiate from siblings like quest_logs beyond the crash/ANR focus. With no output schema or annotations, operational details remain unclear, though the core purpose is covered.

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 schema has two optional parameters with no descriptions, and the description only elaborates on package_name. Device_id is never explained, and the default behavior when both parameters are null is not addressed. With 0% schema coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 retrieves crash and ANR reports (Java, native, ANRs) from the system dropbox, most recent first. This distinguishes it from sibling log tools like quest_logs and quest_logs_stream by specifying a particular source and content type.

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 implies usage for investigating crashes, especially with the filter by package_name guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative log tools or specify when not to use it, so there is clear context but no exclusions.

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