perf_buildid_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the output format, notes that it 'Works on any perf.data,' and clarifies the effects of the kernel and kernel_maps flags. It does not, however, describe error behavior or permissions needed, but for a read-only listing tool this is sufficient.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear structure: purpose, use case, key parameters, and output format. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 that an output schema exists and the input schema covers all parameters, the description adds necessary extra context about the tool's purpose and usage scenario. It also covers the output format and typical use case, making it complete for a straightforward listing tool. It omits only minor details like interaction with force/verbose, which are already in the schema.

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 already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions. The description's parameter notes restate or slightly reword the schema (e.g., with_hits 'only show DSOs that have actual samples' vs schema 'Show only DSOs with hits'), adding little new information. It does not explain 'force' or 'verbose' beyond their schema descriptions, so the value added is marginal.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'List the ELF build-id hashes for binaries referenced in perf.data.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling perf tools, which are about reports, timecharts, or sched operations, and not about build-id verification.

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 explicitly states a use case: 'Use this to verify symbol resolution will work: compare build IDs against installed debuginfo packages.' This gives a clear context and intent. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the guidance is strong enough for selection.

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