get_jvm_health

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the data source ('Actuator on localhost') and lists measured areas, implying a read-only probe. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, prerequisites such as Actuator being enabled, or failure behavior.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key metric categories, uses a dash to separate the data source, and every segment 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?

The description lists the metric categories it returns, which is helpful given there is no output schema. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on exact return shape, failure modes, or whether metrics are per-pod or aggregated. The namespace required/optional inconsistency also adds ambiguity.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate, though note the namespace description in the schema claims 'required' while context signals list zero required parameters.

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 names a specific verb-resource pairing: it is a probe of JVM health metrics from Actuator. It enumerates distinct metric categories (heap vs container limit, GC pauses, threads, classes, CPU) that clearly separate it from sibling tools like get_actuator_health, get_jvm_config, 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 its use for JVM health inspection via Actuator, but it never states when to use this tool over overlapping siblings like get_actuator_health or get_jvm_config. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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