analyze_crash

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates the tool extracts specific information and likely provides a structured summary, which is a transparent account of its observable behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention that it is read-only or whether it requires special permissions, but the analyze verb implies non-mutating 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and lists the output components without unnecessary filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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 relatively simple, but the description lacks parameter guidance, usage alternatives, and any note about return format or limitations. The extraction list provides a clear idea of the output, but given no output schema and no annotations, the description is only partially complete for a robust agent understanding.

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 elaborate on the parameters (mc_dir, crash_file). The names imply their roles (Minecraft directory and crash file path), but the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving the AI to infer parameter format and how they should be provided.

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 '解析' (analyze) with a clear resource '崩溃报告' (crash report), and lists the extracted components (Minecraft version, exception type, error message, top stack info, summary). This distinguishes it from siblings like find_crash_reports or read_log, which find or read files without performing structured analysis.

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 when a single crash report needs analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_log or find_crash_reports, nor does it provide exclusions. The scope is clear but without explicit guidance.

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