db_dump

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the load. It discloses the conversational/interactive behavior (asking questions) and the options for scope and content, which is useful. However, it does not describe the output file location, potential side effects, or whether it creates a file in the working directory, which would be expected for a dump operation.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the main action. The conversational flow is clearly stated without unnecessary detail. It earns a 4 because it's efficient, though it could be more structured with explicit sections.

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 that the tool has 4 parameters, all with high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is decent but not complete. It covers the parameter semantics via schema and the conversational behavior, but lacks details on return value (file path, success/error messages) and safety aspects. For a tool that writes to disk, more transparency would be better.

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 schema already explains each parameter. The description adds the key behavioral note that if parameters are not passed, the tool will prompt, which supplements the schema. This adds value beyond the schema's static descriptions, hence a 4.

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's purpose: 'Exporta la base de datos a un archivo SQL' (exports the database to an SQL file). It distinguishes from sibling tools like db_restore and db_dump_list, though it doesn't explicitly mention those. The conversation flow detail adds context about the interactive nature.

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 mentions a conversational flow (asking about scope and content) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_query or db_restore. It doesn't state exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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