utility_dump

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains what the tool returns (plain properties with values, relationships with cardinality and count), gives a concrete example ('looping'), and notes that FMOD's dump() returns nothing here, which is transparent about its behavior versus alternatives.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose and usage, includes a parenthetical example for clarity, and ends with a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary 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?

For a read-only introspection tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and what the parameter means. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter 'target' has no description in the schema. The description compensates with 'Object path or {guid}', providing essential format details. This is exactly the kind of added meaning needed.

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?

Clearly states it performs 'real introspection' of a live object's plain properties and relationships, with specific details on what is included. The description distinguishes this from FMOD's own dump() and clarifies it returns data here, unlike FMOD's console-only logging.

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 advises using the tool 'BEFORE concluding a capability doesn't exist' and contrasts it with FMOD's documentation and dump() behavior, which is direct when-to-use guidance. This is superior to merely implying usage context.

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