dump

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

It discloses output location and runtime expectations for certain kinds, but does not mention side effects such as file overwriting, required game state, or potential errors. With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility and could be more transparent.

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?

The description is concise and to the point, with no fluff. The list of kinds is compact, and additional notes about output location and timing are useful without being verbose.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the parameter's meaning, output location, and timing caveats. It could mention return values or error conditions, but overall it is reasonably 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?

The sole parameter 'kind' is not described in the schema, but the description lists possible values in the text (usmap, jmap, etc.), providing partial semantic coverage. It does not exhaustively enumerate all valid options or explain the effect of each kind.

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 clearly states the action ('Trigger a UE4SS dumper') and lists the specific dump kinds (usmap, jmap, uht, cxx, actors, objects, static_meshes). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like inspect_object or eval_lua.

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?

It provides some usage context (output lands in the ue4ss directory, jmap and uht take minutes) but does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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