get_crash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose output variability ('when available') and that the artifact includes both raw and decoded forms, but says nothing about behavior when no crash exists, permissions, or whether the call is read-only. Useful but incomplete for a zero-annotation 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the payload description and followed by the default behavior. The closing remark about decoded frames is mildly editorial but functions as useful prioritization guidance rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description correctly focuses on content shape and defaulting. For a simple two-param read tool the definition is nearly complete, with only the 'session' parameter and empty-result behavior left unaddressed.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the crash_id default ('most recent crash') but leaves the 'session' parameter entirely undefined, so half the parameters remain semantically opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get crash artifact') and immediately enumerates the payload (raw panic lines + decoded backtrace). An agent can distinguish it from query_logs or summarize_session without opening a schema, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Defaults to the most recent crash' implies the common invocation pattern, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings like query_logs or list_boots, and no stated prerequisite (e.g. an active crash session).

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