analyze_gc_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool does but does not disclose whether it is read-only (likely safe), any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a log analysis tool, read-only nature should be stated.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence front-loads the action and outputs. Second sentence adds supportive detail. Every word earns its place.

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 JVM GC log analysis tool with no output schema, the description should hint at the return format (e.g., structured data vs. summary). It covers inputs and analysis scope adequately but falls short of full completeness.

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% with a single parameter described as 'The GC log text'. The description adds value by listing supported GC formats, which helps the agent provide appropriate input. This goes beyond the schema's simple description.

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 uses specific verb 'Parse' and resource 'JVM GC log', and lists analysis areas (pause times, allocation rates, memory pressure) and supported formats (G1, ZGC, Parallel, Serial, Shenandoah), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like analyze_jfr or analyze_thread_dump.

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 context is clear: this tool is for analyzing JVM GC logs. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling tool names and description imply specialization.

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