get_heapdump_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a status/progress query, but it does not explain permissions, whether parsing is asynchronous, polling expectations, possible status values, or failure behavior for an invalid report_id.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated immediately. However, the second sentence is a Chinese translation that duplicates the English content without adding semantic value for an agent.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter query with an output schema, so return-format details are not required in the description. Still, it omits report_id guidance, usage context, and basic behavioral expectations, leaving it adequate but incomplete.

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 tool has one required parameter, report_id, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only says 'for a heap dump report' and does not explain where report_id comes from, its expected format, or whether it matches IDs returned by dump/list tools.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('parse status and progress for a heap dump report'). Sibling tools are list/open/close/dump operations or MAT analytics, none of which is a status/progress query, so an agent can distinguish this tool by purpose even without an explicit sibling reference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The word 'status' implies checking an existing report, but the description does not say when to poll this versus using list_heapdumps or other report tools.

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