get_jvm_info

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 (Dict with specific fields) and error handling (empty string returns error), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'get' implies reading).

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 effectively. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool. The Chinese purpose statement is concise, though the formatting has some unnecessary whitespace. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides good completeness. It explains the parameter thoroughly, documents the return structure, and mentions error behavior. The main gap is lack of sibling differentiation, but given the tool's simplicity and good parameter documentation, it's mostly complete.

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 description adds significant semantic value beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage and only shows pid as a string with default empty. The description explains: pid must be a string (e.g., '12345'), supports decimal/hexadecimal formats, and empty string returns an error. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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: '获取JVM基础信息' (Get JVM basic information). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_memory_info or get_thread_info. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_jvm_status, which might be a similar sibling tool.

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. With multiple JVM-related sibling tools (get_jvm_status, get_memory_info, get_thread_info, etc.), there's no indication of what distinguishes this 'basic information' tool from others. The only usage context is the parameter explanation, not tool selection guidance.

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