list_jvms

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a read-only listing (no destructive hints), and clarifies it can operate locally or in Docker. It does not mention edge cases or authentication, but is adequate for a simple list tool.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage direction. No redundant words. Front-loaded with the main action.

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?

The description covers key aspects: what it lists (local and Docker), what output it provides (command line and PID), and how to use the output. It lacks explicit mention of return format or error handling, but given no output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema describes the parameter 'containerNameOrId' as optional, and the tool description adds meaning by explaining that it filters to JVMs in that container. With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value beyond the schema by contextualizing the parameter.

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 specifies the verb 'list', the resource 'JVMs', and the scope ('locally running' or 'in a Docker container'), and lists output details (command line and PID). It also explicitly connects to sibling tools 'attach' and 'create_heap_dump', distinguishing its role.

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 states 'Use the information to call attach or create_heap_dump', providing clear context on when this tool is useful. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare with other siblings.

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