thread_dump

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe read-only nature, and the description adds useful output context by mentioning the merged view and deadlock detection. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not disclose much beyond that—no mention of scope, cost, or how the snapshot behaves across repeated calls.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that names the action first and then states the result. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states the action and the key outputs. It falls slightly short by not clarifying pid semantics, but the low complexity and supporting annotations/schema make the gap minor.

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 does not explain the pid parameter at all. An agent must rely on the property name and type to infer it is a process ID, but there is no guidance about what process is targeted or what format/value is expected.

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?

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('抓一次线程快照') and states the concrete outputs: a merged view and deadlock detection result. This clearly distinguishes thread_dump from its siblings gc_stat and heap_histogram, which target different runtime areas.

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 context is only implied: the description says it captures a thread snapshot and detects deadlocks, so an agent can infer it is for thread/diagnostic analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over gc_stat or heap_histogram, nor does it give any exclusions or prerequisites.

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