analyze_gc_pressure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details what the tool computes (percentage, GC-type breakdown), how it classifies pressure (Scavenger vs. Mark-Sweep vs. Incremental), and the threshold-flagging behavior. It does not describe exact return formatting, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 four tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then details, then an actionable use-case question. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is moderately complex, and the description covers the analytical output (percentage, breakdown, flag, recommendation) sufficiently given the absence of an output schema. It could be more explicit about the exact return structure, but the behavioral outline and threshold semantics provide enough context for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only mentioning a 'configurable threshold' without introducing new details about parameter usage or constraints.

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 states a specific verb ('Analyses') and resource ('V8 .cpuprofile') with a clear scope ('garbage collection overhead'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like extract_hottest_functions and analyze_call_tree_path by focusing exclusively on GC metrics and bottleneck diagnosis.

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 a clear usage question ('is GC the bottleneck...') and explains the type of allocation pattern diagnosis, but it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or name alternative tools. Still, the context is unambiguous and actionable.

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