List Crash Reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and environment scope are covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation payload -- nothing about whether reports persist, how many are returned, or whether the device must be active.

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?

A single tight sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is concise, though arguably too terse for the information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description should describe what a crash report contains (bundle id, timestamp, stack trace?) and whether results are paginated or limited. Neither is present, so an agent cannot anticipate the return shape from this definition alone.

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% and the single 'device' parameter already documents itself, including the pointer to mobile_list_available_devices. Per the high-coverage baseline this sits at 3; the description adds no format or discovery detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('crash reports') with device scope, which cleanly separates it from the singular mobile_get_crash sibling. It doesn't explicitly name that sibling or explain the distinction, but the list-vs-get contrast is reasonably inferable.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mobile_get_crash (fetch one report) or mobile_get_device_logs. The only contextual pointer lives in the parameter schema, not the description.

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