analyze_crash_trends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Analyze' implies a read operation, but it doesn't state whether it's read-only, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. The description is too vague to ensure correct invocation.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It doesn't front-load critical information or use formatting to aid scanning. Every word is functional but incomplete.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should hint at the return format (e.g., aggregated statistics, time series). It doesn't. Combined with missing usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, the description is incomplete for proper tool selection and invocation.

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% and both parameters have enums with basic descriptions ('Analysis period', 'Grouping criteria'). The description adds no extra context about how these parameters affect the analysis; it merely restates their enum values. 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 'Analyze crash trends and statistics over time' uses a specific verb and resource, indicating aggregation over time. However, it lacks specificity on what kind of trends or statistics are analyzed, and doesn't differentiate from siblings like get_crash_details or get_anr_issues.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_fatal_crashes for fatal crashes only, or get_crash_details for individual events). The description doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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