edb_generate_core_dump

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it saves full process memory and register state, clarifying what is captured. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like process pausing or file size implications, nor does it elaborate on the 'save state' equivalence beyond what annotations suggest.

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 extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose, an immediate synonym, and an args/returns breakdown. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, clear return type), the description sufficiently covers all important aspects: what it does, what it captures, the output file path, and the return value. No gaps remain.

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 schema already describes the parameter 'file_path' with a default and description. The description repeats this ('Output file path (default: core)') without adding new meaning. With high schema coverage (one parameter described in schema), the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'generate', the resource 'core dump', and the purpose 'for post-mortem analysis'. It distinguishes itself by noting equivalence to EDB's save state feature, differentiating from sibling tools like dump_memory_to_file or dump_registers.

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 description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edb_dump_memory_to_file or edb_dump_registers. It only implies usage for post-mortem analysis but does not exclude other scenarios or provide comparisons.

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