mat_diagnose_oom

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the operation is async. However, it gives no indication of how results are retrieved afterward (job handle, status tool, polling), expected runtime/cost, or whether repeated invocations on the same report_id reuse prior work. For an async aggregate of three expensive scans, those gaps matter.

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 compact sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler; the key 'async' qualifier and the aggregation list both appear immediately. The full English/Chinese duplication is redundant for a single-language reader but is a standard bilingual convention, so it is not a real defect.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained. Still, for a multi-analysis orchestration tool with an async contract and three undocumented parameters, the description omits the follow-up path (how to collect the async result) and the meaning of the tuning options, leaving an agent unable to call it well without opening the schema.

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 0% and the description mentions no parameters at all. Three parameters exist — report_id, onlyRisky (default true), and culpritPct (default 30) — and the description provides no meaning for any of them, notably leaving the semantics of onlyRisky and culpritPct entirely unexplained.

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 ('Run comprehensive OOM diagnosis') and enumerates exactly what it aggregates (leak suspects, SQL-in-threads, dominator analysis), which implicitly sets it apart from the individual sibling tools. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the relationship, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 enumeration of the three analyses implies this is a one-call alternative to mat_leak_suspects / mat_sql_in_threads / mat_dominator, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance. Nothing says whether to prefer this aggregate for a first-pass triage versus calling the targeted tools for a focused question.

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