gc_efficiency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the analysis performed (pause time vs freed bytes) but does not state whether the tool modifies the .jfr file, requires any permissions, or has side effects. Since the tool is likely read-only and safe, the omission is minor but not ideal.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, usage context, and sibling differentiation. No redundant or verbose language. Front-loaded with the core function.

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 is adequate but not complete. It defines the output (GC efficiency metrics) and usage sequence, but lacks parameter documentation. Given the tool has only two optional parameters with defaults, the missing parameter info is a notable gap. The sibling references provide good context.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning parameters are not documented in the schema. The description does not mention filepath or topN at all, leaving their purpose and usage entirely unexplained. The default values and constraints in the schema are insufficient for an agent to understand how to use them correctly.

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 extracts GC efficiency metrics (pause time vs freed bytes) from .jfr files, broken down by collector/cause. It explicitly distinguishes itself from parse_jfr_summary, a sibling tool for general JFR summaries, and positions itself as complementary to profile_memory and heap_info.

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 gives explicit usage context: use after stop_profiling, complements profile_memory and heap_info, and refers to parse_jfr_summary as the alternative for a general JFR summary. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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