perf_kwork_top

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the input requirement (perf kwork record), the ranking metric, and that the output is a ranked list. It does not describe any side effects, permission needs, or nuances like how BPF mode affects behavior, but for a read-only reporting tool this is acceptable.

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 very concise and well-structured: a clear first sentence, a brief purpose statement, a bullet for key parameters, then output and requirements. Every sentence earns its place and the content is immediately scannable.

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 14-parameter schema is fully covered and an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values in depth. It supplies the essential prerequisite, the core metric, and the intended use case. It could have added a note on how this relates to sibling kwork tools, but the overall context 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?

Since the input schema's description coverage is 100%, the description doesn't need to restate all parameters. It adds value by highlighting the 'sort' parameter and clarifying its default ('runtime'), which is not in the schema. Minor discrepancy: it omits 'avg' which the schema lists as a sort key, but the description says 'key parameters' and not exhaustive.

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 this tool ranks kernel work items by total runtime and identifies them as interrupt/softirq/workqueue handlers. It uses a specific verb ('Top...ranked by total runtime') and describes the resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling kwork tools like perf_kwork_report.

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 implies usage as a 'quick view' of busiest handlers and states the prerequisite 'Requires: perf kwork record.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like perf_kwork_report or perf_kwork_latency, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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