crashes_get_by_id

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get detailed information' without revealing what that entails (e.g., fields returned, permissions, pagination). It is not misleading but is minimally informative.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified relative to the tool's requirements, and its brevity borders on insufficient rather than effective conciseness.

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 has two parameters and an output schema, but the description does not clarify what 'detailed information' means, the role of the include parameter, or any preconditions. While the output schema reduces the need to document return values, the description is too sparse to be considered 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter (submission_id or include). The agent is left without any explanation of what these parameters mean or how to use them, making it impossible to invoke the tool correctly beyond guessing.

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 retrieves detailed information about a specific crash submission, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from list/search siblings by emphasizing specificity and detail, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus crashes_list, crashes_search, or crashes_get_log. The single sentence implies it is for a specific crash but provides no context on selecting it over alternatives.

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