Open Native Crash Dump

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable specifics: it starts only the local debugger adapter, never launches or resumes the crashed program, treats the dump as read-only, and returns the initial stack/locals/registers plus optional modules and disassembly. This goes beyond the annotations and directly supports safe invocation.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then provides usage guidance, then summarizes behavioral guarantees and return contents. Every sentence contributes distinct value.

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?

Despite having 13 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context for correct selection and invocation: when to use it, what it does and does not execute, and what evidence it returns. The remaining parameter details are fully covered by the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The top-level description does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, though it does reinforce high-level intent such as optional modules and disassembly. Since the schema already documents each parameter well, the description's contribution here is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('local native core/minidump'), and immediately distinguishes this from live-debugging siblings by noting it is for already-recorded failures with no target process execution. It also names the two supported adapters and the postmortem evidence captured, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('when the failure is already recorded and no target process should execute') and names the alternatives for live reproduction ('use debug_run_to_stop or debug_this_crash instead'). This gives an agent clear routing guidance with no inference required.

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