arthas_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 states a read operation but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or error behavior. While likely safe, the lack of transparency is a gap.

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 with 12 words, highly concise. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could be slightly more structured with a list of returned information types.

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 tool has no output schema and only one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details on what is returned, format, timeout handling, or which specific JVM stats are included.

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 (timeout) described. The description does not mention parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema already covers it.

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 gets JVM information, specifying categories like memory usage, GC stats, and runtime info. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on more specific aspects (e.g., arthas_memory for memory only, arthas_dashboard for dashboard). However, it could be more precise about what 'runtime info' entails.

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 like arthas_memory or arthas_thread. There is no mention of prerequisites, scope, or exclusions.

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