collect_startup_evidence

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it only states what facts are collected. The parameter `reset_and_halt` suggests the tool may reset and halt the target, which is a significant side effect not mentioned in the description. The description also doesn't clarify whether it modifies state or what the return format is.

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 wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose in a compact structure.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, and the description only offers a brief overview of collected facts. It omits essential context such as parameter semantics, potential side effects, and expected return values, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool safely and correctly.

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 does not explain any of the four parameters. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning about their usage, defaults, or relationships.

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 identifies the tool's function: to collect reset, vector, context, and log facts specifically for startup failures. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling evidence collectors by its startup-failure scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like collect_crash_evidence or collect_rtos_evidence.

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 'for startup failures' implies the intended use case, signaling when an agent should select this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist for other diagnostic scenarios. There are no references to sibling tools or exclusions.

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