get_jvm_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the pod spec is redacted and that Actuator /info is included only if a probe exists. It does not mention read-only status, side effects, or error conditions, but it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 description is a single sentence that efficiently packs a lot of information: main purpose, source, redaction, and conditional actuator info. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, though it could be split for readability.

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 config retrieval tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns: JVM flags, Spring env, heap/GC findings, and optional actuator info. It does not detail output format or errors, but those are not critical for this read-only inspection tool.

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, and the schema already provides clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. A minor inconsistency exists in the namespace property (claimed required but optional in schema), but that is not the description's fault.

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 retrieves effective JVM flags and Spring environment from the pod spec, along with heap-vs-limit and GC findings, and optionally Actuator /info. It is specific about the resource (pod spec) and the data returned, distinguishing it from siblings like get_jvm_health and get_thread_dump_summary.

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?

The description implies usage for JVM configuration inspection, and the mention of 'Effective JVM flags and Spring env' gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer from the content.

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