ssh_db_dump

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, compression defaults, supported DB types, and that tables parameter is ignored for MongoDB. It could be improved by mentioning SSH authentication requirements or error handling.

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 efficient sentences front-load the core action and read-only guarantee. No wasted words.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key behaviors like DB type specifics and compression. Lacks details on output file format (e.g., .sql) and restoration hints (though pg_restore is mentioned for postgresql).

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%, but the description adds significant value: explains compress defaults, tables ignored for MongoDB, and specific flags used for each DB type, which goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool dumps a database to a remote file over SSH, emphasizing it is read-only. It specifies supported database types and distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_db_import or ssh_backup_create.

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 context for when to use (dumping databases) and notes read-only behavior, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or contrast with alternative sibling tools for backup or import.

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