sophos_request_memory_dump

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive), which align with the description's 'request a memory dump' action. The description adds useful context about returning a request ID for polling, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 description covers the main functionality: initiating a memory dump and providing a request ID for subsequent polling. It does not mention all parameters (e.g., tenant_id, endpoint_id) but the schema covers those. Without an output schema, the description could have elaborated on the return format, but it is adequate for an agent to understand the workflow.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description highlights two key parameters ('dump mode' and 'expiry time') but does not add significant meaning beyond the existing schema descriptions. The schema already fully describes all parameters, so the description provides minimal added value.

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 ('request'), the resource ('memory dump from an endpoint'), and the purpose ('forensic investigation'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like sophos_get_memory_dump_status, which is for polling status rather than initiating the dump.

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 specifies required inputs ('dump mode and expiry time') and the return value ('memoryDumpRequestId to poll for status'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use sophos_get_memory_dump_status). The implied workflow is clear but could be made more explicit.

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