sharphy_analyze_dump

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does so by declaring the operation 'non-destructive, read-only diagnostic inspection', so the agent knows no state is mutated. It does not mention runtime cost, large dump handling, or what happens on a missing/corrupt dump, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: capability, when-to-use/when-not with named siblings, then behavioral/safety profile. Front-loaded with the core purpose and zero 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?

For a single-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, routing, and safety. The one gap is it never indicates what the analysis yields (a text RCA report, findings list, etc.), which the absence of an output schema would otherwise require.

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% and there is only one parameter, so baseline would be 3. The description adds real meaning the schema lacks: the schema only mentions '.dmp', while the description extends acceptance to Linux ELF core dumps, resolving a potential ambiguity for the caller.

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 (performs automated Root Cause Analysis) on a specific resource (Windows .dmp and Linux ELF core dumps), and names the crash dumps / call stacks it targets. An agent can distinguish it from sharphy_deadlock_detector and sharphy_inspect_heap by name alone.

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 gives the positive condition ('diagnosing fatal process crashes, unhandled exceptions, or crashing thread call stacks') and the negative cases with named alternatives for each: deadlocks go to sharphy_deadlock_detector, leaks go to sharphy_inspect_heap. No inference required.

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