kernel_meta_cost_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful traits: the numbers come from rolling p50 stats maintained by the cost router across runs, and the response degrades to enabled=false when the router isn't wired in. It omits that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation and says nothing about result stability or cost of the call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and progressing to data provenance and degraded mode. There is no filler, no restatement of the tool name, and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the tool is simple with one optional parameter. The description covers purpose, data source, and the disabled fallback, which is sufficient to call it correctly. Only the missing sibling differentiation and limit semantics keep it from being fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single `limit` parameter, so the description must compensate. It partially does by saying 'Top-N', which implies limit caps the ranking size, but it never states bounds, defaults, or what happens if limit exceeds the number of tracked tools.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb-like outcome and resource: it returns the top-N tools ranked by accumulated dollar cost. That is far more concrete than a tautology. The only gap is that it never distinguishes itself from the sibling kernel_audit_cost_report, which an agent could plausibly reach for instead.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative such as kernel_audit_cost_report. An agent must infer that this is the ranking/profiling view rather than an auditing view purely from the phrase 'Top-N tools by accumulated dollar cost'.

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