JProfiler

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's behavior (listing JVMs with command line and PID) and context (local or Docker containers), but lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, or output format. It adds some value but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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 sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and output, second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value (listing details and downstream 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on output structure, error handling, or authentication needs. It's adequate for basic understanding but has clear gaps for a tool that likely returns structured data about JVMs.

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 the schema already documents the optional containerNameOrId parameter. The description mentions 'Docker container' context, which aligns with but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('locally running JVMs or JVMs running in a Docker container') with specific output details ('with their command line and PID'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing rather than actions like attach or create_heap_dump.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use the information to call attach or create_heap_dump'), providing clear downstream usage context. It differentiates from siblings by positioning this as a prerequisite step for those tools.

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