debugger_open_dump

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description's framing of a mere 'open for inspection' adds no clarifying context about what state is created or destroyed. It omits that opening likely establishes a debugger session that must later be closed with debugger_close, and says nothing about adapter selection, symbol resolution cost, or timeout 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core action leads. It is efficient but bordering on under-specification for a four-parameter tool with a nested options object.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the tool has four parameters including a nested DumpOptions object, two required fields, and a session lifecycle, none of which the one-line description addresses. An agent would have to reconstruct intent from the schema alone.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it does not. It never mentions toolset_id, adapter, timeout, symbol_directories, or source_mappings, and 'project/storage' is too vague to map onto dump_file or executable.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Open a ... user-mode crash dump for inspection'), which is distinguishable from debugger_launch and debugger_attach. It does not, however, clarify what 'project/storage' scoping means or how the tool relates to the session lifecycle siblings (debugger_sessions, debugger_close).

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over debugger_launch or debugger_attach, nor any prerequisite stated (e.g., that a toolset_id must already exist). Only 'for inspection' hints at post-mortem use, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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