perf_process_breakdown

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes a read-only query that groups and counts processes, with no hints of side effects. It lists expected output categories, though it does not mention output format or potential errors. Overall, it is transparent about the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main action and then provide valuable examples. Every word earns its place without extraneous details.

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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is fully complete. It explains the purpose, output types, and real-world usage examples, enabling an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. According to the scoring guidelines, 0 parameters yield a baseline of 4, which is appropriate here.

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 groups and counts OpenSIPS child processes by role, listing specific role examples (UDP receivers, TCP workers, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'perf_hotspots' or 'get_process_list' by focusing on role-based grouping and misconfiguration detection, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 clear context for usage by explaining the tool helps spot misconfigurations, with concrete examples (e.g., children=4 on an 8-core machine). It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'perf_memory_report' or 'get_process_list', but the context strongly implies when this tool is appropriate.

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