Run LeakHunter asynchronously to identify likely memory leak suspects in a Java heap dump, returning retained sizes and descriptions; may take up to a minute.
Run LeakHunter (async) — returns leak suspects with retained size and description. SLOW: may take a minute. / 运行 LeakHunter（异步），返回疑似泄漏点及 retained 大小与描述。慢查询，可能耗时数十秒。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 two real traits: the operation is asynchronous and it is SLOW (may take a minute). It omits how results are retrieved after the async call (presumably via get_heapdump_status) and any permission or failure behavior.
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 English text is front-loaded and efficient: verb, return shape, then the latency warning. The full bilingual duplication roughly doubles length without adding information, a minor cost.
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 the return shape needn't be explained, and the SLOW/async warning is valuable. But for an async tool, the description leaves a real gap: it never says the result must be polled or where to obtain it, which an agent needs before calling.
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 single parameter report_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what it is (a heapdump/report identifier) or where it comes from. Unlike the 0-parameter baseline of 4, this param needs prose support that is absent.
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+resource: runs LeakHunter and returns leak suspects with retained size and description. The resource is distinct from siblings like mat_dominator or mat_histogram, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
No guidance on when to reach for this versus mat_dominator, mat_top_consumers, or other analysis tools; the leak-hunting framing implies usage but names no alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., that a heapdump must already be opened to supply report_id).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.