open_heapdump

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that MAT indexing runs in the background, that the call returns immediately with status=PARSING, and that completion must be polled. It omits error behavior for a missing/invalid path and any resource-lifecycle hint (close_heapdump), which keeps it from a 5.

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 two tight, front-loaded sentences with the follow-up instruction last, so nothing is wasted. The full Chinese mirror doubles the length without adding information, which is defensible for a bilingual audience but is redundant text by strict conciseness standards.

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 details needn't be explained, and the async contract plus polling instruction covers the non-obvious part of a one-parameter tool. What remains missing is failure handling and the related lifecycle step (closing the opened dump via close_heapdump).

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 0% and the single 'path' property has only a title, so the description must compensate. It adds two meaningful constraints absent from the schema: the path must be absolute and must point to a local .hprof file, which is exactly the information an agent needs to form a valid argument.

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 (open a local Java heap dump), names the accepted format (.hprof), and distinguishes itself from the listing/parsing siblings by being the entry point that produces a report_id. An agent can tell it apart from get_heapdump_status or list_heapdumps without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly describes the follow-up workflow: poll get_heapdump_status until DONE, which tells the agent exactly what to do after the call. It doesn't state when not to use this tool (e.g., when a dump is already open or when dump_java_heap should be used first), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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