dumps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves a list' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the dumps are in (e.g., raw data, summaries). The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral details for effective tool invocation.

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 a single, straightforward sentence: 'Retrieves a list of dumps.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise. However, it is arguably too brief, lacking necessary context about what 'dumps' are, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the efficient structure.

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 complexity (a list retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'dumps' are, the return format, or any behavioral traits like pagination or authentication needs. While the schema covers the single parameter well, the overall context for using the tool is insufficient, especially without annotations to fill in gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single optional parameter 'query' documented as 'An optional query string to filter the dumps.' The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it mentions no parameters. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without additional description input.

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 'Retrieves a list of dumps' clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('dumps'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'dumps' are (e.g., data exports, log files, or system dumps) and does not distinguish this tool from any siblings, as none of the sibling tools have similar names or obvious overlap in functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. While the sibling tools list includes no obvious alternatives for listing dumps, the description itself offers no usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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