beta_feedback_crash_submissions__crash_log__get

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds the resource type and endpoint but no further behavioral context such as response format, authentication needs, or pagination, which is a minimal contribution beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentence plus an explicit endpoint string. Every word is purposeful, and the key action and resource are front-loaded with no filler.

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 one-parameter GET operation with robust annotations, the description is adequate. It lacks an explicit statement about the return content or authentication context, but the endpoint and verb make the purpose clear. Given no output schema, a brief note on the response format would have made it fully complete.

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 provides 100% coverage of the single 'id' parameter, including a helpful description ('ID from the matching list call'). The tool description itself does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 clearly states 'Read the crash log for a beta feedback crash submission' with a specific verb and resource, and includes the HTTP endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like beta_feedback_crash_submissions__get (which fetches the submission itself) and beta_crash_logs__get (which targets a different log context).

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 implies usage via the endpoint and the schema param note 'ID from the matching list call' indicates a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer exclusions from the tool name.

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