get_crash_history

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It states it 'picks up' events and 'labels' them, implying read-only behavior but doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive or discuss side effects, rate limits, or auth. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then detailed parameter descriptions. Every sentence is informative with no fluff. The docstring-style Args block is well-structured.

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?

Given output schema exists, description needn't detail return values. It explains what events it covers (bug checks, restarts, WHEA errors, etc.) and mentions labeling. With 3 well-described parameters and clear usage context, it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing parameters in an Args block: days (how far back), max_events (max per log), include_noise (keep harmless entries). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, which only provides defaults.

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 it retrieves critical and error events from System and Application logs, specifically for diagnosing PC crashes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_event_logs, query_event_log, and inspect_crash_dump which are for more general or deeper 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?

Explicitly recommends it as the first call for 'why did my PC crash', providing clear context. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the recommendation implies usage context. Sibling tools like inspect_crash_dump are for post-crash deep dives.

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