Get Thread Dump

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral nuance beyond annotations: 'Stack traces require HTTP mode; TCP mode returns thread states only.' This discloses a mode-dependent limitation that the agent must know. It also mentions optional heap histogram inclusion. Some context about output size or latency is missing, but the additional mode disclosure justifies a 4.

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?

Four short sentences, all substantive. The first sentence states the action, the second states use cases, the third explains the optional parameter, and the fourth reveals a critical mode dependency. No filler or redundant phrasing, and key information is front-loaded.

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 diagnostic tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, use cases, optional behavior, and a crucial mode limitation. The only gap is the lack of any mention of expected output format or structure, but since no output schema exists, the description would benefit from stating what sort of data is returned. Still, the essential context is present.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already explains obj_hash and include_heap_histogram. The tool description hints at the heap histogram purpose ('for memory analysis') and the agent-specific obj_hash, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool captures a thread dump from a specific JVM agent, with optional heap histogram. It names specific use cases (deadlocks, thread contention, thread activity) which distinguish it from sibling diagnostic tools like get_system_overview or diagnose_performance. The verb+resource is concrete and 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?

Explicitly says 'Use for diagnosing deadlocks, thread contention, or understanding thread activity', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude other tools, but the purpose statement makes the intended context evident. No when-not-to-use is provided, so it falls just short of a 5.

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