beta_crash_logs__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' is consistent. No additional behavioral context (e.g., response size, permissions, or relationship to list calls) is provided beyond what annotations and schema already cover.

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 sentence plus an endpoint path, with no redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded and direct.

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 read-only GET with well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is adequate and complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could mention the return format or the list relationship, but the resource name and ID parameter make the operation clear.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with useful descriptions for both parameters, including the 'ID from the matching list call' and the fields selection with a 200 KB warning. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond repeating 'by ID', so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), identifies the exact resource ('one beta crash log'), and specifies the lookup key ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from list-style sibling 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 'by ID' phrasing implies use when a specific crash log identifier is known, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as list calls. The schema's id description hints at 'matching list call', but the main description provides no usage guidance.

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