[Debug] Dump raw document objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the debug-only nature and the version-dependent variability of the output. It does not explicitly say 'read-only' or 'no side effects,' but the inspect/dump framing makes that reasonably clear.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The debug-helper framing is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is embedded efficiently in the second sentence.

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 no-parameter debug utility, the description covers purpose, trigger condition, output variability, and relationship to a sibling tool. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description to carry. The empty schema plus the description fully disambiguates the call signature.

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 is specific: it is a debug helper that dumps raw document-object fields exposed by the installed Beat version. It clearly differentiates itself from beat_list_documents by describing its role as a diagnostic fallback.

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?

Explicitly states when it should be used: only if beat_list_documents titles/paths look wrong. This gives the agent a concrete routing condition and names the sibling tool it complements.

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