nodes_hot_threads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the diagnostic purpose and parameters, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, whether it affects system performance during sampling, or any rate limits. The description provides basic context but lacks crucial operational details needed for safe invocation.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the purpose, lists parameters with clear explanations, and ends with usage context. Each sentence earns its place, though the formatting with blank lines could be slightly cleaner. The information is front-loaded with the main purpose stated first.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and good parameter coverage in the description, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and what parameters mean, but lacks behavioral context about safety, performance impact, or operational constraints. For a diagnostic tool that samples thread activity, more guidance about when and how to use it safely would be beneficial.

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?

The description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains all four parameters in Chinese: node_id (节点 ID), threads (每个节点显示的线程数 - threads per node), interval (采样间隔 - sampling interval), and type (线程类型 cpu/wait/block - thread type). It even specifies valid values for the 'type' parameter. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds meaningful context beyond what the bare schema provides.

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's purpose: '获取节点热点线程' (Get node hot threads) with the specific context of '用于诊断 CPU 高占用问题' (Used for diagnosing high CPU usage problems). It provides a verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('节点热点线程' - node hot threads) with a clear diagnostic purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nodes_info or nodes_stats that also provide node information.

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 provides implied usage guidance by stating the tool is '用于诊断 CPU 高占用问题' (used for diagnosing high CPU usage problems), which gives context about when this tool would be appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools for similar purposes (like nodes_stats for general node statistics). The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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