dump_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Inspect' reasonably conveys a read-only operation, and the purpose clause adds context, but it says nothing about output size, whether the dump is truncated, or any cost/latency characteristics of parsing arbitrary code.

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 the action, the resource, and the reason for using it, with zero redundant or filler text.

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 three-parameter read-only inspection tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the purpose and the intended workflow. It is nearly complete; only the return shape and the 'pattern' format mode are left unaddressed.

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 100%, so all three parameters (code, format, language) are already documented in the schema, including the format enum. The description reinforces the cst/ast distinction but omits the 'pattern' format value and adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (Inspect) and resource (CST/AST of code) and states the downstream purpose (crafting ast-grep patterns), which implicitly separates it from siblings like search and find_symbols. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 'for crafting ast-grep patterns' implies the workflow context (use before authoring a pattern), which is genuine but indirect guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative among search, replace, count, find_symbols, or list_files.

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