collect_docker_target

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'consume one bounded session run' reinforces that the operation is state-consuming rather than benign. It adds extra behavioral context beyond annotations: the data is collected 'through the restricted Broker' and 'the Docker adapter never enters the Collector or Helper,' which clarifies the architectural path and constraints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 only two sentences with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded ('Re-resolve... consume... collect...'). Each sentence contributes a distinct piece of information. It loses half a point because the dense, undefined jargon ('bounded session run', 'restricted Broker', 'Collector', 'Helper') makes the compactness harder to parse.

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?

With 11 parameters, zero schema coverage, and a destructive side effect, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what 'collect' returns, what 'bounded session run' means, how authorization is checked, or how to map inputs to the desired collection behavior. The output schema and annotations cover some risk signals, but an agent would still struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters, but it mentions none of the 11 parameters: no guidance for mode, events, call_graph, frequency_hz, duration_seconds, host_pid, container_pid, or max_output_bytes. The only weak link is that 'authorized existing-container process' loosely maps to container_reference, but this is far too generic to help an agent choose correct values.

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 specific verbs ('re-resolve', 'consume', 'collect') and a concrete resource ('authorized existing-container process' via 'restricted Broker'), so an agent can tell this tool collects data from a Docker container process already authorized. It does not name a sibling tool, but the scoping language ('authorized', 'bounded session run') and the Broker/Collector/Helper routing hint differentiate it from the broader collection tools. The meaning is somewhat jargony but not a tautology.

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 implies usage for an already-authorized existing-container process and a bounded session run, giving some contextual conditions. However, it does not state when to prefer this over siblings like collect_docker_optimization_workload, collect_managed_docker_workload, or collect_profile, and there are no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-naming guidelines.

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