get_jvm_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the target must be a RUNNING server, and byte values are converted to MB for readability. It does not discuss permissions or failure modes, but for a read-only stats call the added context is substantive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the returned metrics followed by a brief unit note; no filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, yet the description helpfully summarizes it. The only residual gap is explicit routing versus siblings like get_server_health; otherwise an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

There is one parameter, server_name, at 0% schema description coverage. The description's reference to 'one RUNNING WebLogic server' implies the parameter identifies the server, but it adds no format or naming guidance (e.g., logical vs instance name). Adequate but thin compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (return JVM heap and runtime statistics) and enumerates exactly which values come back: current/max heap, free heap and percentage, uptime, Java version. The 'one RUNNING WebLogic server' scoping distinguishes it from get_server_health and list_servers without needing the schema.

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 phrase 'for one RUNNING WebLogic server' implies a precondition (the server must be running) and the single-server granularity suggests usage context, but no sibling tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-get_server_health guidance.

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