get_thread_dump_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output is a reduced summary ('Never the raw dump') and enumerates content, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, mention potential errors, or describe how the summary is generated. The behavior is somewhat transparent but lacks depth.

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 front-loads the core function and lists output components. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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?

Given it's a read-only summary tool with no output schema, the description adequately lists the key output categories and explicitly notes the absence of raw dump. It lacks details on error conditions or how to interpret DEADLOCK detection, but covers the essential information an agent needs to decide and invoke the 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%, so all three parameters (pod, service, namespace) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or relationships, so the baseline score of 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 it retrieves an Actuator threaddump summary, listing specific components (threads by state, pool busy/total, lock contention, DEADLOCK detection, top stack signatures) and explicitly notes it is 'Never the raw dump'. While it doesn't name sibling tools, the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from a generic health check.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what it does, not the conditions that warrant calling it. It doesn't mention when not to use it or point to sibling tools for related diagnostics, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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