list_jvms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains what is returned and where it looks, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is safe to repeat. It vaguely describes query behavior without explicit reassurance of non-destructiveness.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second gives usage guidance. It is efficiently front-loaded.

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 covers return contents (command line and PID). It could be improved by specifying the output format (e.g., array of objects). Still, it's complete enough for a simple list tool that feeds into other tools.

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% for the one optional parameter. The description adds value by explaining the parameter's role in filtering to Docker containers, and implicitly that absence means local JVMs. This goes beyond the schema's terse description.

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 lists locally running JVMs or those in Docker containers, providing command line and PID. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like attach and create_heap_dump which are actions to take after listing.

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 explicitly says 'Use the information to call attach or create_heap_dump,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or other alternatives, which would be helpful.

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