Get crash groups

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses aggregation behavior, row-level fields, the optional build filter, and the return envelope { game, groups }. It does not clarify whether resolved crashes are included or specify ordering/limits, but as a read-style query this is mostly sufficient.

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 purposeful sentences, front-loaded with the grouping behavior, then a user-question framing, sibling contrast, optional scoping, and return shape. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description still lists the key returned fields and the envelope. It misses finer details like whether resolved/unresolved crashes are included and any sorting or limit behavior, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 the baseline is 3. The description only adds 'optionally scope to one build', which slightly reinforces the build parameter's optionality but does not add substantial meaning 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+resource: crashes grouped by signature. Lists concrete output fields (occurrence count, affected-session count, first/last seen, affected build versions, latest message/stack) and distinguishes from sibling list_crashes, which is described as the flat unresolved list.

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 contrasts with list_crashes (the flat unresolved list) and frames the question this tool answers: 'what's the most common crash and how many people hit it?'. Also notes the optional build scope, giving clear selection context.

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