gc_finalizer_info

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 mentions 'diagnostics' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or what side effects (if any) occur. For a diagnostic command, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (12 words), which is efficient, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the command name and purpose, but lacks structure or additional context.

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 the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description should at least specify what diagnostics are provided (e.g., number of finalizable objects, queue length). It fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess the return value and behavior.

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 input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'pid' parameter at all. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, which is critical since the schema provides no description.

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 identifies the tool's purpose as finalizer queue diagnostics using 'jcmd GC.finalizer_info'. It specifies the resource (finalizer queue) and action (diagnostics), distinguishing it from siblings like gc_class_stats which focus on class statistics.

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. Sibling tools exist (e.g., gc_efficiency, heap_histogram) but there is no mention of conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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