run_and_dump

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the target is launched, optionally elevated, and then terminated after dumping. That termination step is a destructive side effect worth knowing. It does not state permission requirements for elevation, failure handling, or kill semantics if the wait expires, so the disclosure is partial.

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 compact sentence ordered as the actual runtime sequence, with no filler. It is front-loaded and readable, though it is under-specified rather than truly concise for a five-parameter tool.

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 tool whose schema is entirely undocumented, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits where dumps land, what form they take, and the meaning of default-on options like elevated and include_main, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 five parameters, so the description is responsible for their meaning. It only hints at 'elevated' and the wait step; it says nothing about exe path handling, outdir destination, or what include_main controls, leaving most parameters opaque.

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 clear verb sequence (launch, wait, dump module images, terminate) applied to an executable target, so an agent can tell what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from a close sibling like dump_process, leaving ambiguity about when this composite flow is preferable to a plain process dump.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternative named, despite siblings such as dump_process and debug_launch that overlap in intent. The agent must infer that this is for dump-then-terminate workflows rather than interactive debugging.

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