Dump Raw BaseContainer

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the weight of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool dumps a raw BaseContainer including hidden keys and supports filtering by key range, implying a read-only introspection operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, describe the output shape, or mention error behavior for invalid handles—gaps that matter given the absence of annotation metadata.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the distinguishing detail (hidden keys not in `describe`) follows immediately, and the filtering capability is stated economically. Every sentence contributes.

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?

The handle schema is complex and well-documented in the input schema, but the tool itself has no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the main purpose and filtering but omits expected output format, potential size of the dump, and explicit guidance on when to prefer it over related tools like `dump_shader` or `get_params`. For a tool with this complexity and no annotations, more contextual guidance would be valuable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by linking `id_from`/`id_to` to the practical action of narrowing output and giving a concrete example of hidden keys. This helps an agent understand the value and purpose of the optional key-range parameters.

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: 'Dump the raw BaseContainer of a C4D entity.' It immediately differentiates from related tools by noting it includes hidden keys not shown in `describe`, with a concrete example (Octane AOV shader slots at 3740/3741). This unambiguously identifies the tool's distinctive purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool by contrasting with `describe` and suggesting key-range filtering to narrow output. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when *not* to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it for raw, complete container inspection.

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