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. It states 'Retrieves a list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what 'dumps' entail (e.g., size, format, or access constraints). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence: 'Retrieves a list of dumps.' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details for clarity, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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 (a list operation with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'dumps' are, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits. For a tool in a server with many siblings, more context is needed to understand its role and usage fully.

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 one optional parameter 'query' documented as 'An optional query string to filter the dumps.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain query syntax, filtering criteria, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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' restates the tool name 'dumps' with a generic verb 'retrieves', making it tautological. It doesn't specify what 'dumps' are (e.g., data exports, logs, or system dumps) or distinguish this tool from siblings like 'tracesList' or 'revisions', which might also list items. The purpose is vague beyond the basic action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'tracesList', 'revisions', and 'feeds' that might list similar items, the description lacks context on its specific use case, prerequisites, or exclusions. It implies a general listing function but offers no differentiation.

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