get_jstat_output

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format in detail (raw_output, timestamp, success, error), which is helpful. However, it lacks critical behavioral information such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, error conditions beyond what's in the return dict, or performance implications of the sampling parameters. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet points for the return fields. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool with detailed return specifications. However, the initial purpose statement is somewhat terse, and there's minor redundancy in specifying '使用字符串形式' (use string form) for multiple parameters.

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 (4 parameters, monitoring command execution) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description does a reasonable job but has gaps. It thoroughly documents parameters and return format, which is good. However, it lacks context about jstat itself (what it monitors, typical use cases), doesn't explain the relationship between interval and count for continuous monitoring, and provides no error handling guidance beyond the error field in returns.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides excellent parameter semantics: it explains each parameter's purpose (pid for process ID, option for jstat options like gc, interval for sampling interval in milliseconds, count for sampling count), includes examples ('12345', '1000', '10'), and clarifies data types (all as strings). This goes well beyond what the bare schema provides.

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: '执行 jstat 监控命令' (execute jstat monitoring command). It specifies the verb ('执行' - execute) and resource ('jstat 监控命令' - jstat monitoring command), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_jcmd_output' or 'get_jvm_info', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_jcmd_output' or 'get_jvm_info', nor does it specify scenarios where jstat is preferred over other monitoring tools. The only implicit context is that it's for monitoring Java processes, but this is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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