get_crash

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only the most recent crash is returned, the platform limitation, and the source (crash buffer). It does not explicitly state behavior when no crash exists, but overall provides good transparency for a read-only tool.

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 three sentences long and every sentence earns its place: purpose, platform limitation, and usage hint. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers the core purpose, platform constraints, and suggested usage pattern. An output schema exists, so return values are likely documented. Minor gaps like edge cases (no crash) are acceptable and do not detract much from overall completeness.

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?

Schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains 'package' as an optional filter, but 'device' is left undefined. The description adds some meaning for package but fails to clarify the required device parameter, which is a significant gap given 0% schema 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 tool returns the full stack trace of the most recent crash from the crash buffer. It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling list_crashes by focusing on the most recent crash and providing a detailed trace.

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 gives explicit guidance: it is Android-only (iOS not supported), tells users to pair with list_crashes to see what crashes exist, and mentions the optional package filter. This clearly indicates when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

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