perf_sched_script

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

With no annotations, the description must carry transparency. It discloses the raw output format and requirement, but does not mention potential side effects, output size, or behavior nuances like whether it reads from stdin or modifies files. Basic but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by use-case guidance and output/requirement notes. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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?

The tool has 8 parameters (1 required) and an output schema. The description covers purpose, usage context, output format, and prerequisite. It doesn't explain parameter details, but the schema covers that, making the overall context sufficiently complete for a dump-style tool.

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 description coverage is 100% (all 8 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail beyond stating input path and dump purpose; it relies on the schema for parameter semantics.

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's verb+resource ('Dump raw scheduler tracepoint events from perf.data') and explicitly differentiates it from sibling structured-view tools by naming latency, timehist, and map. This provides a specific, unambiguous purpose.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('for custom analysis or when the structured views... don't show what you need'), names alternative tools, and states a prerequisite ('Requires: perf sched record'). This is strong contextual direction for selection.

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