find_crash_reports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature (listing) and the return values, but lacks details on error handling, directory existence, or permission requirements. This is adequate for a simple list operation but not rich.

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, efficient sentence. It front-loads the core action and return values without any filler or redundancy.

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 simple listing tool, the description covers the main action and return values. However, the unexplained required parameter mc_dir leaves a significant gap, and the absence of an output schema means the return format is only partially specified. This is minimally viable but not complete.

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 only parameter mc_dir has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description never mentions it. The agent is left guessing what mc_dir means (likely Minecraft directory, but not stated). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 lists all crash reports in the crash-reports/ directory and returns file names and modification times. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_crash and read_log.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need to enumerate crash reports) but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives. The context is clear but doesn't state 'don't use for analyzing specific crashes' or similar.

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