ul_dump

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states it 'dumps' the table, implying a read operation, but does not disclose potential performance impacts, resource usage, or safety characteristics. The brief parameter behavior is noted, but broader behavioral traits are missing.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a bullet for the parameter. No extraneous information. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

For a simple dump tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It explains the main intent and parameter effect. Could mention system impact or distinguish from similar tools, but overall acceptable.

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 value by explaining the 'brief' parameter: 'If True, return a compact summary instead of full details.' The schema only provides type and default, so this explanation is necessary. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 uses a specific verb ('dump') and resource ('entire user location table'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like 'ul_show_contacts' or 'mid_registrar_dump' that operate on more specific subsets.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'ul_show_contacts' or 'mid_registrar_dump'. The description does not provide context for choosing this tool.

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