get_crash_logs

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or what the output contains (e.g., file paths vs. content). Only 'recent' and source are hinted, but default limits are in schema.

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 phrase with no wasted words. It could be slightly more detailed without harming conciseness, but it is efficient.

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 the 13 sibling log tools and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify the return format, filtering behavior, or distinct use cases, making it incomplete for effective tool selection.

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 schema already explains the three parameters (process, lastDays, maxReports). The tool description adds no extra meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent crash reports') and identifies the source ('DiagnosticReports'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_logs (general logs) or read_crash_report (reading a specific report).

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. the numerous sibling log tools (e.g., get_logs, get_device_logs, read_crash_report). There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.

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