Dump an object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it discloses that the output is raw, verbose, and includes the full property/child tree, which is meaningful for a tool with no output schema. It stops short of stating read-only nature explicitly or any size/truncation behavior on large objects.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary effect, followed by the comparison clause. Every fragment earns its place with zero padding.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (class, path, properties, children) and flags verbosity, which is enough to call correctly. Only minor gaps remain around read-only confirmation and behavior on very large objects.

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% and there is a single parameter whose accepted reference syntaxes are fully enumerated in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or resolution details beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb (return) and resource (raw grandMA3 Dump() text for an object) and enumerates exactly what the text contains: class, path, every property and child. It also names the sibling that produces structured data, so an agent can distinguish gma3_dump from gma3_get_object without opening either schema.

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?

"Verbose; prefer gma3_get_object for structured data" explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it. The implicit converse rule (use this when you need the raw dump text) is directly derivable, leaving nothing to infer.

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