profile_memory

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool is for profiling (not mutation) and clarifies that OldObjectSample is by allocation site, not GC roots. But it omits details on rate limits, idempotency, or authorization needs.

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 two sentences, efficiently stating the tool's purpose and usage context with pairing and prerequisites. Slightly more structure could be beneficial, but it's well front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (allocation stacks, OldObjectSample) and lack of output schema, the description provides a solid conceptual overview but leaves detailed output format unexplained. It suffices for understanding the tool's role within the sibling set.

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 is 3. The description repeats the concept of top allocators by bytes/count but adds no new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides in parameter descriptions.

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 provides JFR memory profile data including top allocators and allocation stacks, and distinguishes from siblings like heap_dump and heap_live_histogram_diff by pairing suggestions.

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 pairing suggestions with specific sibling tools and notes the prerequisite of a profile preset recording, offering clear context for usage. However, it lacks explicit 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.