parse_jfr_summary

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. Lists output components but does not disclose whether tool is destructive, requires permissions, or has performance implications. Since it's a parser, read-only is implied but not confirmed.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose and output, then usage guidance. Each sentence 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?

With 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid overview of what to expect. It could mention the output format or that it's a lightweight summary, but it's sufficient for quick understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema; does not explain how 'events' parameter affects output or the structure of 'topN' results.

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?

Clearly states verb (parse), resource (.jfr file), and specific output elements (top methods by CPU, GC stats, thread allocation, anomaly hints). Differentiates from sibling tools like heap_dump or gc_efficiency by emphasizing high-level overview.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for a quick high-level overview before diving into specific profiles,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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