list_crash_dumps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('scans') and scope ('recursive'), but doesn't describe what constitutes a crash dump (file extensions, formats), whether it requires permissions, rate limits, output format (though output schema exists), or error handling (e.g., invalid paths). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the parenthetical '(recursive)' adds necessary detail without verbosity. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (file scanning), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter context but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, error handling) and usage guidelines. With output schema existing, it needn't explain return values, but other gaps remain, making it adequate but with clear room for improvement.

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?

The description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it clarifies that 'search_path' is for scanning 'in the specified directory (recursive)'. However, with 0% schema description coverage (schema lacks descriptions for the parameter), the description doesn't fully compensate—it doesn't explain path format, default behavior, or validation rules. With 1 parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description provides only basic context, so a 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 clearly states the action ('scans for') and resource ('crash dumps') with specific scope ('in the specified directory (recursive)'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_sys_info' or 'run_crash_command' by focusing on file discovery rather than system info or command execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'start_session' is clearly different).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., directory existence), when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'run_crash_command' for analyzing dumps. The context is implied (scanning for files) but lacks explicit usage rules.

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