track_allocations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'track object allocations' without explaining that it runs for a duration, triggers GC optionally, or produces a summary or snapshot. Key behavioral traits like performance impact or non-destructiveness are absent.

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 only 4 Chinese characters, which is under-specified. It is not a complete sentence and fails to convey essential information. Conciseness should be achieved without sacrificing clarity; here it is too brief.

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 (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain return values, typical use cases, or how the tracking integrates with other memory tools. Completely inadequate for an agent to use effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, including nested export options. Since the schema already provides detailed parameter semantics, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 '跟踪对象分配' translates to 'Track object allocations', which states the core action and resource. However, it is a short phrase without elaboration, making it somewhat vague. It barely distinguishes from sibling tools like get_heap_snapshot (which takes a snapshot) and analyze_memory (which analyzes memory), but not explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent without context to decide among sibling tools like get_heap_snapshot or analyze_memory.

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