dump_registry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the side effect of writing to disk: 'Writes to a file on disk (where the worker runs) to avoid oversized MCP responses.' It also explains the output format (JSONL) and record types. It does not mention file overwrite behavior or error conditions, but the disclosed side effects are significant and clearly conveyed.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, a brief explanation of the output format, a usage note, and an organized arg list. It is slightly longer than minimal due to the JSON examples and detailed parameter explanations, but every sentence adds value. The front-loaded purpose and structured format earn it a strong score.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (bulk export, file output, multiple parameters) and the absence of schema descriptions, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage context, side effects, output format, and parameter meanings. An output schema exists, so omitting explicit return values is acceptable. Minor gaps include lack of mention of error handling or resource implications, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by documenting each parameter in an Args block: project_path, output_path, include_methods, addons_paths, exclude_modules. It adds semantic detail beyond the schema, such as 'Absolute path where the JSONL file will be written' and 'Default True' for include_methods, which the schema only provides as a title/default. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the verb and resource: 'Bulk export the entire registry to a JSONL file.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_models and model_info by emphasizing bulk export of the entire registry to a file, rather than per-model queries. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Designed for initial ingestion: one call replaces thousands of per-model round trips.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus making many smaller calls. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, preventing a perfect score.

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