arthas_monitor

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 the tool runs in the background, waits up to awaitMs, and returns results inline or a job ID. However, it does not detail side effects, permissions, or what 'monitor' entails in terms of state changes. Adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and key behavior. No superfluous text; every sentence is meaningful and contributes to understanding.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It explains the core behavior but lacks details on return format, error conditions, and the specific statistics monitored. Could be more comprehensive for a monitoring tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; awaitMs is mentioned but already documented. Parameter semantics are adequately covered by schema.

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?

Describes monitoring of method invocation statistics, a clear verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like arthas_trace or arthas_watch, which also monitor methods. The mention of background execution and job ID hints at uniqueness but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 the tool's mechanism (background, inline vs async) but does not state when to prefer this over alternatives. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided; usage is implied.

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