diagnose_jvm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that cross-correlation requires aligned time windows and warns about spurious correlations with mismatched logs. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., format of diagnosis output) or any side effects, which is a gap for a diagnostic tool.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences with clear, front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds distinct information: purpose, cross-correlation behavior, and single-source option. No wasted words.

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 complex diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how results are presented. It lacks this, making it incomplete despite good input guidance. The sibling tools may provide output examples, but this tool's description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the output.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining how to use each parameter (e.g., trim GC log to symptom window, capture thread dump during active symptoms) and the consequences of misalignment (spurious correlations). This greatly aids correct invocation.

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 is a 'Unified JVM diagnosis combining thread dump and GC log analysis with cross-correlation' and lists specific detections (deadlocks, lock contention, GC pressure, GC-induced cascading thread blocks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_thread_dump and analyze_gc_log.

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 explains when to use the tool (when both inputs are from same time window for cross-correlation) and that either input can be omitted for single-source analysis. However, it does not explicitly suggest alternatives like analyze_thread_dump for thread-only analysis or analyze_gc_log for GC-only analysis, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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