top_crashes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description's burden is lower. The description adds that results are ranked by affected users and include a sample stack trace, which is useful context. However, it does not state the default time/version scope behavior or that stack traces are controlled by a parameter that can be turned off, so the extra value is modest.

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?

A single compact sentence with zero filler, and the ranking criterion and scope are front-loaded. It is efficient, though its terseness pushes explanatory burden onto the schema rather than the prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a tool with four parameters (two undocumented) and overlapping siblings, the definition leaves the agent guessing about default version resolution, how many issues are returned, and how it differs from new_issues.

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 coverage is 50%: app and version_code are documented in the schema with their defaults, while limit and include_stack_traces carry no descriptions. The phrase 'with a sample stack trace' loosely gestures at include_stack_traces but does not explain it as a toggle, and nothing clarifies the limit's ranking semantics or its 1-50 range. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage and marginal compensation.

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?

Names a concrete resource (crash/ANR issues) with an explicit ranking criterion (affected users) and scope (in a version), plus what is returned (a sample stack trace). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_release_health and new_issues, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the closest alternative (new_issues), which plausibly overlaps with this tool. The only implicit signal is 'in a version', leaving the agent to infer selection from the sibling list.

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