mid_registrar_dump

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states 'dump' which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm read-only, idempotency, or lack of side effects. The description lacks behavioral disclosure beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no extraneous information.

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 simplicity (no parameters, an output schema exists), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what the output contains or whether the dump is safe. It could be more complete by mentioning 'read-only' or the nature of mappings.

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?

No parameters exist, so the input schema fully covers the interface. With zero parameters, the description has no additional semantic load to carry. Baseline is 4.

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 verb 'Dump', the resource 'mid-registrar AOR state', and specifies the mapping direction 'UAC→upstream'. This is distinct from sibling tools like mid_registrar_update and other dumps (e.g., ul_dump, lcr_dump).

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 like mid_registrar_update or other dump tools. There is no mention of use cases or exclusion criteria.

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