run_crash_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool runs commands but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, how output is handled (though an output schema exists), or any rate limits. The examples hint at functionality but don't clarify behavioral traits.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes helpful examples. There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 complexity (running system commands), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety, permissions, or parameter meanings beyond command examples. However, the existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, providing some baseline adequacy.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only mentions the 'command' parameter through examples (e.g., sys, bt), but provides no context for 'session_id' or 'truncate'. This leaves two of three parameters without semantic explanation, failing to adequately compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('Runs') and target ('crash utility command'), and provides specific examples of commands (sys, bt, log, ps, files, vm, kmem). This makes the purpose specific and understandable, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_drgn_command'.

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 like 'run_drgn_command' or 'list_crash_dumps', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a session (implied by the session_id parameter). Usage is implied through examples but not explicitly stated.

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