dump_tb_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly reveals that this is an escape hatch returning 'raw' data and is 'intentionally heavy,' which warns about performance and lack of refinement. It does not fully describe output shape or potential errors, but for a read-oriented dump tool it provides the key behavioral context.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The key warning and purpose are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is tightly integrated without redundancy.

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 lack of parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. The enum helps explain the 'section' parameter, and the sibling tool list provides context, but 'handle' is undefined and the return value shape is not described. Still, as a deliberately heavy escape hatch, the description conveys the essential role.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely connects 'section' to a 'named raw section' of the hierarchy, and it does not explain what 'handle' refers to or what each enum value means. The enum values are listed in the schema, but without descriptions the agent is left to guess their semantics.

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 clear verb and resource: 'return a named raw section of the full hierarchy result.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by calling itself an 'escape hatch' and contrasting with 'targeted handle tools,' so an agent can understand this is the less-refined, broader alternative.

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 instruction 'Prefer targeted handle tools — this is intentionally heavy' explicitly tells the agent to favor alternatives when possible and warns that this tool is expensive. It does not name specific sibling tools or enumerate exact conditions for when the escape hatch is necessary, but it gives clear directional guidance.

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