read_error_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the read operation and lists the returned fields (faulting application, module, offset, exception code). It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a read-only tool this is adequate transparency.

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 concise with two short paragraphs and a bulleted list of return values. It front-loads the purpose and every sentence adds value, achieving high information density without waste.

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 presence of an output schema, the description still provides a clear explanation of the return value structure. The single parameter is fully described with usage context, making the tool definition complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 input schema only defines 'path' as a required string. The description adds significant meaning by specifying it is a '.wer file' and indicating the source ('from list_error_reports'), compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 verb 'read', the resource 'one Windows Error Reporting report', and details the specific return values (problem signature components). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_error_reports' and other diagnostic tools.

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 implicitly guides usage by stating that the 'path' argument should be a '.wer file, from list_error_reports', suggesting a typical workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be used over alternatives or exclude cases where it is inappropriate.

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