dump_database

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Gets the current state,' implying a read operation, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether this is a safe, non-destructive action, what permissions are required, or the format/scope of the returned data. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 complexity (a database dump tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, permissions), usage context, and output format. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for the agent to invoke this tool correctly is insufficient, especially compared to sibling mutation tools.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% description coverage, with clear explanations for both parameters ('hideCompleted' and 'hideRecurringDuplicates'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional context, such as explaining why these filters are useful or their impact on the output.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('current state of your OmniFocus database'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like 'batch_add_items' or 'edit_item'), which would require a 5. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the name 'dump_database'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include various mutation operations (e.g., 'add_omnifocus_task', 'remove_item'), the agent must infer that this is a read-only tool for data retrieval, but this is not explicitly stated in the description.

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