analyze_jfr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the input constraint (text vs binary) but does not mention behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or error handling. The tool appears to be a read-only analyzer, but this is not explicitly 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?

The description is two sentences: the first lists capabilities, the second provides a critical input constraint. Every word is necessary, no fluff or redundancy.

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 one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what input it expects. It could mention the return format or error behavior for completeness, but for a simple analysis tool, it is sufficient.

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. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that the input must be the stdout text from `jfr summary`, not the binary file. This prevents common misuse.

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 parses JDK Flight Recorder summary output and analyzes various performance aspects (event distribution, hotspots, GC, lock contention, I/O, allocations). The verb 'parse' and 'analyze' with specific resource 'JFR summary output' makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 specifies the input format: 'text printed to stdout by `jfr summary <recording.jfr>`' and warns against providing the binary .jfr file. This is a clear usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for different data types.

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