write_memory_dump

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and non-idempotent; the description adds the material facts an agent needs: the target process is cloned so it pauses only briefly, a full dump captures credentials and keys, lsass.exe is off-limits, and the first call is deliberately refused with a risk explanation. The destructiveHint=false is not contradicted — the risk here is confidentiality and process access, not data destruction.

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?

Front-loads what it writes and where, then the mode tradeoff, then the safety constraints in escalating order. Every sentence — including the lsass and force sentences — carries decision-relevant information, with no filler.

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?

Covers safety, side effects, and the confirmation gate thoroughly, which is the hard part for a high-risk tool. It does not say what is returned (e.g., path/filename of the created dump) and there is no output schema, so the agent must infer the result shape; that is the one remaining gap.

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 coverage is already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the consequence of each value (full dump contains passwords and keys) and the operational meaning of force (the second call in a gated confirmation flow). The pid parameter gets no extra treatment, which is fine for an unambiguous integer.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Writes a memory dump of a process") plus a destination ("Anabolic's dumps folder") and the two modes with their contents. No sibling tool in the list does anything similar, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Explicitly frames the purpose ("for a debugger"), defines the small-vs-full choice with tradeoffs (few MB vs whole address space, including secrets), states a hard exclusion ("Never for lsass.exe"), and describes the two-call confirmation protocol with force=true. This is the when/when-not/alternatives bar fully met.

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