debug_dump

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the stopped-process precondition and RVA-offset semantics, but says nothing about the mutation side effect (writing files to disk), where output lands, required permissions, or failure modes on a running session.

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 tight sentence with the resource and the key offset semantic front-loaded. No filler, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise for the tool's complexity.

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 file-producing debug tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves too much unstated: output naming/location conventions, session requirements, and interaction with dump_process/run_and_dump. The stopped-process hint is the only completeness aid.

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% across both parameters, so the description must compensate. The parenthetical about RVA relates to dump content semantics, not to either parameter; neither 'outdir' nor the required 'session_id' is explained in the description.

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 ('Dump') and resource ('module images of the stopped process') with a useful scope qualifier ('dump offset == RVA'). However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like dump_process, run_and_dump, or debug_read_memory, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the text alone.

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 phrase 'of the stopped process' implies the precondition that a debug session must be halted before calling, which is real implied guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no alternative tool is named despite several overlapping dump-related siblings.

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