Heap summary (.sparkheap)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. The description only describes the output, not the behavior.

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 very concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. It front-loads the file type but provides no headings or separation. It is somewhat under-specified for a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema.

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 presence of sibling tools like get_summary and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'largest retained types' means, the output format, or how it relates to other tools. More context is needed for an agent to choose correctly.

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 description coverage is 50% (only profileId has a schema description). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how 'topN' affects results or what 'profileId' refers to, beyond what is already in the 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?

The description clearly states the tool is for .sparkheap files and returns the largest retained types by size with instance counts. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_summary (which likely targets other file types) and get_sources_breakdown (different focus).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_summary or get_sources_breakdown. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned. The description is purely declarative without usage context.

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