perf_kallsyms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It clearly states the tool reads the running kernel's symbol table, requires no perf.data, and returns a specific output format. This is sufficient for a read-only lookup, though it doesn't mention permissions or edge cases.

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 efficient: one sentence for purpose, one for the perf.data caveat, then a compact parameter list and output format. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 simple 2-parameter tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, its prerequisites, and its return format. The schema covers parameters, and the description provides an output format example, making it 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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description repeats this information and adds the output format, but does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Look up a kernel symbol by name' and lists the return fields (address, type, module). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling perf tools, none of which perform symbol lookup.

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?

Explicitly states that it does not require a perf.data file and reads the running kernel's symbol table directly, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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