JProfiler

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what data can be retrieved but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential performance impact, or what format the returned data takes. The description is insufficient for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences that efficiently communicate core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with specific capabilities. No wasted words, though it could benefit from more structural guidance for usage.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or what the agent should expect as output. The description provides basic functionality but leaves significant gaps for proper tool 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?

The description mentions view types that correspond to the 'view' parameter's enum values, adding some semantic context. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all 3 parameters. The description doesn't provide additional parameter insights beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 as retrieving aggregated heap dump data with specific view types (biggest objects, retained class lists, class histograms). It uses specific verbs ('retrieve', 'show') and identifies the resource ('heap dump'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_heap_dump' or 'load_snapshot'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_heap_dump' or 'load_snapshot'. It mentions what the tool can show but offers no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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