profile_jfr_locks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the need to enable events via custom .jfc, but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has other side effects. This is minimal transparency.

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 concise with three sentences that pack relevant information. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but avoids unnecessary words.

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 complexity of lock profiling and the number of sibling tools, the description covers the main purpose and related tools. However, it lacks explanation of return values or output format, and parameter details are missing. It is adequate but not thorough.

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% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the parameters (filepath, topN) beyond their schema defaults. It adds no meaning to what filepath represents or how topN affects output, leaving the agent to infer from names.

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's purpose: profiling lock contention from JFR, specifying two types (synchronized monitors and parking). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing analyze_threads and check_deadlock for related but different tasks.

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 provides guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: for live wait chains, use analyze_threads; for deadlocks, use check_deadlock. It also hints at prerequisites (enabling JFR events). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or cover all alternatives.

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