jar_inspect_constant_pool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Dump' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description never states that it is non-mutating, that it requires a live session (session_id), or what the output looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is exactly as long as needed and wastes nothing.

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 4-parameter, session-based inspection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the session requirement, the meaning/effect of the filters, and the return format. It is too thin to fully guide invocation.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics for filter_type or filter_value, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Dump') and resource ('constant pool of a .class file'), which clearly distinguishes it from the jar_edit_constant_pool / jar_edit_class_constants siblings. However, it never names a sibling or clarifies the boundary with other read tools like jar_read_class.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The purpose implies inspection, but the agent gets no signal about when to prefer this over jar_read_class, jar_hex_view, or jar_edit_constant_pool.

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