dump

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

The description valuably supplements the annotations (already indicating safe read-only operation) by detailing default behaviors: newest-first ordering, inlining of latest note, exclusion of archived and checkpoint rows unless overridden. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it could mention potential truncation under token budget.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the core purpose and usage. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing defaults separately).

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 8 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context for orientation usage but fails to explain several parameters (scope, since, actor, originator, include_all_notes) and does not describe the return format or token budget behavior. This leaves the agent with incomplete guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of 'include_archived' and 'include_checkpoints' (default false, toggle behavior) and implicitly the 'limit_tokens' parameter via 'token budget'. However, other parameters like 'scope', 'since', 'actor', 'originator', and 'include_all_notes' are left unexplained, leaving gaps.

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 tool's verb ('Dump'), resource ('scoped corpus'), and outcome ('single text blob under a token budget'). It also explicitly ties it to orientation ('what does this repo/user think about?'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search or list that are more query-oriented.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('for orientation'), its default ordering ('newest ideas first'), and default exclusions ('archived excluded', 'checkpoints excluded'). However, it does not specify when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for more targeted queries.

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