get_crash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned content (header and stack trace), but does not clarify read-only behavior, device-selection requirements, or how max_lines may truncate the claimed 'complete' stack trace.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's scope and return content without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the core purpose.

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?

There is no output schema and two of four parameters lack schema descriptions, so the description should do more to explain package and max_lines. It summarizes the returned report but leaves important invocation details unspecified.

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 only 50%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the required package parameter or the max_lines behavior. It only loosely connects the id to list_crashes, which is already documented in the schema.

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 identifies the resource as one crash report and distinguishes it from the sibling list_crashes by emphasizing a single crash and full detail. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb, but the intended action is still clear.

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 phrase 'from list_crashes' implies this tool should be used after obtaining a crash id from the listing tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the schema.

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