crashes_list

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

Without annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: a default limit of 25, maximum 200, and pagination metadata. However, it omits details like filtering behavior, sorting semantics, and authentication requirements. The description contradicts the schema's limit default of 50, undermining trust.

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?

Two sentences provide purpose and limit/pagination information without fluff, making it efficient and front-loaded.

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 output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description does not guide users on the five optional parameters. The limit default discrepancy and lack of parameter explanations leave the tool incomplete for effective invocation.

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 description mentions limit but incorrectly states a default of 25 while the schema declares 50. It offers no explanation for sort, app_id, filters, or include parameters, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate.

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's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('crash submissions from beta testers'), and the [TestFlight] prefix distinguishes it from other crash tools like crashes_search and crashes_get_by_id.

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 listing all crashes but does not explicitly contrast with crashes_search or specify when to use this instead. It provides pagination context but no alternative or exclusion guidance.

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