coredump

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

Annotations already disclose read-only=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't explain that capture writes a core file to 'path' while load reads from it (a key semantic difference), whether the target is halted, or what the session parameter affects. Given the mutation and non-idempotent hints, this is a notable gap.

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?

It is a single terse line with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The action/path shorthand borders on cryptic, but nothing is wasted, so it is efficient if minimal.

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 mutating, dual-mode operation with no output schema, the description omits what a core dump is, what capture does to the running target, how session interacts, and what the caller should expect back. The rich schema covers parameters but the behavioral context an agent needs to invoke this safely is largely 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 'action=capture(path) | load(path)' notation restates the required parameter pairing already expressed by the oneOf schema and adds no format, default, or meaning beyond it; the crucial fact that 'path' is an output for capture but an input for load is left to the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Core-dump capture / load') and spells out the two operational modes via action values, so an agent immediately knows the tool captures or loads core dumps. It stops short of distinguishing this tool from near-neighbors like capture_state or snapshot, so it does not reach a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance: nothing says when to capture versus load, whether a debug session must exist first, or which siblings are alternatives. The action notation shows the mechanics of invocation but gives no contextual selection criteria.

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