Get Crash Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'full content' aspect and the retrieval-by-ID mechanism, providing context beyond what annotations offer. It doesn't describe the exact return format, but the annotations lower the bar for safety-related disclosure.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the usage hint is appended directly. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose—stating what the tool does and how to obtain inputs.

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?

For a simple fetch-by-ID tool, the description is complete: it tells how to find IDs and the annotations cover read-only behavior. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap because the description's 'full content' gives a general expectation. It could benefit from a hint about the output structure, but it's adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so both 'id' and 'device' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra detail about parameter formats or constraints; it only restates that the tool works by ID, which is already implicit. Thus, baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get'), resource ('crash report'), and scope ('by its ID'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly pointing to mobile_list_crashes for finding IDs, which clarifies its role in the workflow.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use mobile_list_crashes to find available crash IDs, giving a clear alternative and prerequisite. This is direct when-to-use guidance that leaves no ambiguity about how to obtain valid IDs.

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