gorebox_read_api_dump

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read and parse' correctly signals a non-mutating operation, and the returned data categories are disclosed. It does not state behavior on a missing/invalid dump_path, whether results are cached, or size/rate considerations for large dumps, leaving real gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 action front-loaded and the return contents following immediately. No filler or redundancy, though it is a fairly minimal statement of behavior rather than a maximally information-dense definition.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: the action, the input source, and the shape of the returned data. Remaining gaps (error behavior, filter semantics) are minor at this complexity level.

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%, with both dump_path and filter fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about parameter formats or the semantics of the case-insensitive filter, so no credit above baseline is earned.

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?

States a specific verb pair ('read and parse') and resource ('API discovery dump file'), and names the upstream generator (gorebox_generate_discovery_mod) so the agent can see this is the consumer of that tool's output. It also enumerates what is returned (globals, functions, tables, callbacks), making the scope unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast against other analysis siblings like inspect_type or pattern_scan, so it stops short of a 5.

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 reference to the generating tool implies the intended workflow (generate a discovery dump, then read it), which is useful sequencing context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no guidance on the optional filter parameter's purpose, and no stated prerequisite that the dump file must already exist. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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