dume_query

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 add real behavioral context: it clarifies the tool reads LMDB-backed state, is non-destructive to raw documents, and avoids token-heavy retrieval. It omits result ordering, the meaning of the limit default, and any explicit read-only declaration, so the safety profile must be inferred.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. But phrases like 'hardware-aligned' and 'burning token context' are marketing flavor that consume space without adding invocation guidance, and the three-sentence block could be tightened.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the read-only nature is reasonably implied. Still, with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, an agent lacks enough to use 'entity_id' correctly or predict how 'limit' affects results.

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%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains what the required 'query' parameter matches (opcodes, enum values, register names, text payloads), but 'limit' and 'entity_id' are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving two of three 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?

States a specific verb ('associative search') and resource ('active state registers and extension payloads in DUMEdb'), and lists the matchable content types. However, it never distinguishes itself from sibling lookups like dume_read_state or dume_read_adr, so an agent must infer which retrieval path to pick.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling tools are named as alternatives. The line about not touching raw filesystem documents implies this is the cheaper lookup path, but the agent is left to infer that comparison against dume_read_state and dume_list_schemas.

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