create_heap_dump

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs both dumping and loading, and references a multi-step process. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., disk usage, file creation) or prerequisites (e.g., permissions).

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 concise: two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the main action, and logically structured around the workflow. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's role in a larger workflow and references sibling tools. It could be more complete by describing return values or error conditions, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to understand its usage.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context by mentioning list_jvms for discovery and the default behavior when containerNameOrId is specified but pid is omitted, but this information is already in the schema descriptions.

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 'dumps the heap' to an HPROF file and loads it for analysis. It specifies the resource (JVM heap) and action (dump and load), and distinguishes from siblings by outlining the specific workflow involving check_status and get_heap_data.

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 a clear workflow: call create_heap_dump, then check_status, then get_heap_data. It also suggests using list_jvms to discover JVMs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the given workflow.

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