inspect_crash_dump

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it reads only headers, is fast, returns specific data for kernel vs app dumps, and flags overlay/anti-cheat modules. No contradictions or hidden aspects.

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 well-structured with a main sentence, bulleted details, a performance note, and an args section. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded without unnecessary repetition.

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 the output schema exists, the description complements it by explaining return values for both dump types, noting special flags, and highlighting performance. It covers all aspects needed for an agent to understand the tool's output and usage.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains both parameters in the 'Args' section: path requires absolute path from list_crash_dumps, and include_modules returns the loaded-module list. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 reads dump file headers and reports crash information, with specific explanations for kernel and application dumps. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_crash_dumps and full stack analysis tools (WinDbg), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 advises when to use ('fast header reading') and when not to ('full stack analysis needs WinDbg'). While it does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools, it provides clear context for appropriate usage.

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