heap_dump

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the file is saved to a specific path and warns about large files, but does not mention whether it overwrites existing files, requires any permissions, or other side effects like performance impact.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and a warning. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the output (hprof file) and its typical use. It could be improved by mentioning the file size magnitude or approximate duration, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool produces.

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 100% description coverage for the pid parameter, referencing list_java_processes. The description adds context about the tool's purpose but does not add additional meaning beyond the schema for the parameter itself.

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 creates .hprof files for Eclipse MAT/VisualVM and provides a specific use case after heap_live_histogram_diff, distinguishing it from sibling profiling tools by its role in the diagnostic workflow.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('after heap_live_histogram_diff picks a growing class') and includes a workflow step using MAT, along with a warning about file size. This effectively tells the agent the context and expected sequence.

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