list_heapdumps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. Saying the result includes status is useful, and 'list' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't clarify whether it returns only currently-open dumps or all known ones, nor anything about ordering, limits, or permissions.

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 short sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. The bilingual duplication doubles the length, which is defensible for localization but doesn't add information for a single-language 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?

For a simple, parameterless discovery tool with an output schema documenting the return shape, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the relationship to open/close/status siblings, which would help an agent place it in the workflow.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. No parameter information is repeated or wasted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List heap dumps') plus a scope qualifier ('known to this MCP server') and notes that status is included. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_heapdump_status or open_heapdump, which an agent must still infer.

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?

Usage is only implied: listing is the natural discovery step before open_heapdump and get_heapdump_status, but the description never says when to call this versus those siblings or whether the listing is a prerequisite. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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