perf_lock_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose a behavioral requirement ('Requires: perf lock record') and the output format, which adds context beyond the schema. However, it does not state safety characteristics (e.g., read-only nature) or potential side effects, though the verb 'Display' implicitly suggests a read operation.

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 concise (four short sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The 'Output:' and 'Requires:' sections are clearly structured. However, the first two sentences ('Display general information...' and 'Shows lock types...') are somewhat redundant, which prevents a 5.

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 has 10 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description provides essential context: the prerequisite file and the output type. The schema covers parameter details, and the output schema covers return values. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling lock tools, which would make it more 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?

All 10 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive.

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 displays general information about locks in perf.data, specifically lock types and configurations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like perf_lock_contention and perf_lock_report, which focus on contention and detailed reports respectively.

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 provides a clear prerequisite (requires perf lock record) that establishes when the tool is usable. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool versus other lock-related tools, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' aspect for a 5.

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