dump_calls

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that output matches `apitrace dump` exactly and explains the callset syntax, which informs how the tool processes its input beyond the annotations.

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 compact yet informative, front-loading the primary purpose and then providing necessary syntax details. It avoids redundancy and keeps the content focused, though the syntax explanation adds length.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is unnecessary. The description covers the main input format and differentiation from a sibling tool, but it does not mention edge cases like error handling or the effect of `timeout`/`max_bytes`, leaving a minor gap.

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 `calls` parameter is thoroughly described with syntax examples, but the other parameters (`grep`, `trace`, `timeout`, `max_bytes`) have no schema descriptions and are not explained. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates, leaving ambiguity for several parameters.

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 that the tool produces a human-readable call dump formatted exactly as `apitrace dump` writes it. It also specifies a use case ('eyeballing a stretch of a frame') and differentiates it from `get_calls` for numeric arguments, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool versus `get_calls` (for numeric arguments) and even documents the full callset syntax for the `calls` parameter. This gives the agent clear guidance on when to select this tool and how to format its arguments.

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