collect_crash_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, yet it only says 'collect,' which implies a read operation. It does not mention that auto_halt defaults to true and may halt the target, nor does it describe any state changes, permissions, or output behavior. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasteful words. It immediately conveys the core purpose and scope, making it 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?

For a tool with six optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description provides only a high-level purpose. It lacks behavioral details, parameter context, and clarity on how this tool differs from other collect_* evidence tools, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description mentions none of the six parameters. It does not compensate for the low coverage by explaining what 'structured crash facts' include or how parameters like auto_halt, include_logs, or resolve_symbols relate to the tool's behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('collect') and resource ('crash evidence'), and clarifies that it does not assign a root cause, which distinguishes it from diagnostic tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling evidence-collection tools like collect_startup_evidence or collect_rtos_evidence, so differentiation is partial.

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 phrase 'without assigning a root cause' hints at a use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. There are many sibling tools with overlapping purposes, making the lack of usage direction a clear gap.

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