Static + recorded dynamic strings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful content context – that the map combines static strings with runtime-recorded dynamic strings – but says nothing about whether a tracing session must have run, how the mapping is keyed, or what happens when no dynamic strings were recorded.

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?

A single compact sentence with no waste, and the content scope (static + recorded dynamic) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be maximally informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the one parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, for a tool whose value depends on runtime recording state, the description omits the precondition and usage context, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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?

There is a single optional instance_id parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains its meaning and default behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the burden.

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 a noun phrase naming the resource (a decryption mapping of dynamic strings) without an explicit verb, though the tool name get_dynamic_string_map supplies the action. It does distinguish content scope from siblings like get_string by noting it merges static strings with runtime-recorded dynamic strings, but the phrasing is vague about what is actually returned or produced.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of get_string, get_global_value, or search_text. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no indication of what state the target must be in (e.g., after a trace run) for runtime-recorded strings to be present.

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