rad_open_crash_dump

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not destructive, and not open-world. The description adds useful context about symbol and memory coverage depending on the dump and matching PDBs, but does not explain what happens on failure or what state changes occur in the session.

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 the core purpose and key limitation front-loaded. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with zero schema coverage on three parameters and no mention of timeout or path, the description is incomplete for correct invocation.

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%, and the description only hints that session_id must refer to an empty session. It does not explain the path parameter (presumably the dump file path) or the timeout parameter, leaving key invocation details undocumented.

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 (load) and resource (local native crash dump) and clarifies it must be in an empty session, which distinguishes it from siblings like rad_attach or rad_launch. It does not name siblings explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'in an empty session' implies a precondition and hints at when to use this over other session-opening tools, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. An agent must infer that rad_create_session is needed first.

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