perf_kwork_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output (per-handler statistics table) and the prerequisite (perf kwork record), but does not discuss read-only nature, error behavior, or any edge cases. It is not misleading, but not rich either.

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 well-structured: a bold summary, a use-case line, key parameters in bullet-like lines, output line, and requirement line. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (14 params, output schema), the description provides a concise overview covering purpose, typical use, key filters, output, and prerequisite. It leaves parameter details to the schema, which is acceptable. It could include an example invocation, but the summary is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with adequate descriptions for all 14 parameters. The description highlights three key parameters (sort, name, kwork) and repeats their allowed values, but adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 provides kernel work item statistics (IRQ, softIRQ, workqueue) with count, total runtime, and max latency. It further clarifies the use case: 'Use this to find the most expensive interrupt handlers or work items.' The sibling differentiation is implicit by focusing on report-style post-processing (Requires: perf kwork record) versus live tools like perf_kwork_top.

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 says when to use it ('Use this to find the most expensive interrupt handlers or work items') and notes the prerequisite 'Requires: perf kwork record.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose between report and other kwork tools.

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