get_heap_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and a user suggestion, omitting details like return type, side effects (e.g., GC trigger), permissions, or performance impact. This is insufficient for a complex tool.

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 sentence with a parenthetical, front-loading the core action and key usage note. It is concise and avoids waste, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description is too brief. It lacks details about return values, process flow, and potential caveats (e.g., size limits). The output schema is missing, so description should compensate.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds a high-level usage hint but no additional per-parameter context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it retrieves a heap snapshot ('获取堆快照'), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_memory' by focusing on snapshot export options, though it could be more explicit about the tool's unique role.

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 explicitly advises asking the user about exporting the raw snapshot and the export mode ('建议先让用户选择是否导出 raw snapshot，以及导出方式'), providing a clear when-to-use guideline. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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