dump_process

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully notes the file written (dump_meta.json), but says nothing about permissions needed, whether it is destructive, or what happens to an existing outdir or existing files.

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; the core action comes first. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness leaves gaps that conciseness alone does not excuse.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves parameters undocumented and omits usage context. The mention of the output file is helpful but insufficient to make the definition complete.

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?

All four parameters have 0% schema description coverage, yet the description explains none of them — not pid, outdir, skip_system, or include_main. The agent gets no meaning for skip_system/include_main, which are non-obvious behavioral toggles.

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 ('every module image of a running process'), plus an output side-effect ('writes dump_meta.json'). It is clear what it does, but it offers no differentiation from sibling dump tools like run_and_dump or debug_dump, which likely overlap.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling dump/analysis tools (run_and_dump, debug_dump). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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