analyze_heap_histo

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool parses and detects various heap issues, implying read-only analysis. It does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or side effects, but the analysis nature suggests no modification. The parameter description adds behavioral context about input options.

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 of 22 words that efficiently conveys the tool's capabilities without redundancy. No wasted words; every part adds value.

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 single parameter with full schema description and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function. It tells what input is expected and what analysis is performed. The parameter description is detailed. No gaps remain for the intended complexity.

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 one parameter described in the schema. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining how to obtain the proper input (with :live for leak detection, without for cheaper snapshot), enabling the agent to produce correct input.

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 the tool's purpose: parse jmap -histo output and detect memory leak candidates, object creation hotspots, classloader leaks, and heap composition issues. It specifies the input type and the analysis outputs, distinguishing it from siblings like analyze_jfr (JFR data) or analyze_thread_dump (thread dumps).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_heap_histos for comparison. The parameter description provides guidance on using :live vs without, but overall usage context is only implied. No direct 'when to use' or 'when not to use' advice.

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