export_crashes

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses async behavior, polling timeout, retry advice, and sequential execution. Lacks explicit statement on read-only or side effects, but these are implied by export/log context.

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 sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, usage differentiation, behavioral notes. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, behavior, and links to sibling export_events. Missing return format (raw logs? CSV?) and prerequisites like authentication. Still reasonably complete given no annotations or output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description does not add semantic detail beyond schema descriptions for parameters like fields or limit. No enrichment provided.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'export', resource 'raw crash logs', and scope 'for a given application and time range'. It also distinguishes from sibling get_report by noting 'per-crash-name breakdowns' versus total count.

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 states when to use this tool over get_report ('Use this for per-crash-name breakdowns') and provides async/rate-limit behavior guidance ('poll up to ~60s, retry after a few minutes for wide ranges, run sequentially').

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