heap_get_state

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

The description discloses that no file is generated and data comes directly from GDB. However, it does not mention prerequisites like GDB being running, whether it is read-only, or any potential side effects. With no annotations, more behavioral context would improve transparency.

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 short with two clear sentences and a return line. It is front-loaded with the key point. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains efficient.

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 no parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks detail on the output format or edge cases. It mentions active chunk count and cumulative statistics but does not elaborate on what the returned text includes.

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 are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining what the tool does overall, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 status overview including active chunk count and cumulative statistics, and specifies it does not generate a file but gets data directly from GDB. While the verb and resource are clear, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like heap_bins_json or heap_snapshot.

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. It simply implies 'quick view' but lacks explicit context, exclusions, or comparisons with related heap tools.

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