config_memoriaRead or update PJe-Calc Java heap (-Xms/-Xmx) in both .bat files; automatically backs up originals and requires app restart to apply MB values.
Sem argumentos: lê Xms/Xmx dos .bat. Com argumentos: altera -Xms/-Xmx nos dois .bat (backup automático). Valores em MB. Reinicie o app para aplicar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| xms | No | Heap inicial em MB. | |
| xmx | No | Heap máximo em MB. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.16.0-mcp.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: an automatic backup is created, values are in MB, and a restart is required to apply. Missing detail on whether the change is reversible beyond the backup, but the disclosure is strong.
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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the mode switch, then backup/unit/restart facts. Zero filler; every clause earns its place.
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 dual-mode config tool with no output schema, the description covers both the read return content (Xms/Xmx) and the write side effects (backup, restart needed). An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly in either mode.
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 100% and the schema already documents xms/xmx with units and ranges. The description adds the mapping that these args become -Xms/-Xmx in the two .bat files, giving file-level meaning beyond the schema's abstract 'Heap' phrasing.
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 (reads/writes Xms/Xmx JVM heap) and elegantly distinguishes its two modes: no-args reads, with-args mutates. An agent can tell exactly what it does versus the many config_* and pjecalc_* siblings.
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 tells the agent when each mode applies (no args = read; with args = write), which is a clear usage split. It does not name alternative tools, but the arg-presence trigger is unambiguous enough that the lack of sibling routing is minor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.