get_jvm_status

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 mentions the automatic process selection behavior when PID isn't specified, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe what 'JVM整体状态报告' actually contains, whether it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, error conditions, or that the return functionality is '暂未实现' (not yet implemented) - which is a significant behavioral limitation that should be more prominently disclosed.

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 reasonably structured with separate sections for Args and Returns, but contains some inefficiencies. The Chinese and English mixing creates minor readability issues, and the '暂未实现' (not yet implemented) note should be more prominent. The core purpose is stated upfront, but the structure could be more streamlined for an AI agent.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter, the description is incomplete. While it documents the parameter adequately, it fails to describe what the JVM status report contains, doesn't explain the '暂未实现' limitation clearly, and provides minimal behavioral context. The agent would struggle to understand what information this tool actually provides versus sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing complete parameter documentation. It explains the 'pid' parameter as a process ID in string format, provides an example ('12345'), and describes the default behavior when not specified. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain format constraints or validation rules.

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整体状态报告' (Get JVM overall status report). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('JVM整体状态报告' - JVM overall status report), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_jvm_info' or 'get_memory_info', which likely provide more specific JVM information.

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 some usage context by mentioning that if no PID is specified, it automatically selects the first Java process. This gives basic guidance on when to provide the parameter. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_jvm_info' or 'list_java_processes', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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