collect_project_workload

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it explicitly says the executable runs as the MCP user, binds a specific PID, and routes through the restricted Collector broker. This gives insight into side effects and security constraints without contradicting 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 a single dense sentence with no wasted words. Each phrase contributes a meaningful constraint (authorization, MCP user, PID binding, broker), but the heavy jargon reduces readability.

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 10 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no explanation of output, the description is far from complete. It fails to clarify the meaning of modes, event lists, call graph settings, timing, or output size limits, all of which are likely critical for correct usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only implicitly explains project_root, executable, and authorization. The many other parameters (mode, events, call_graph, frequency_hz, duration_seconds, max_output_bytes) remain completely undefined, leaving significant semantic gaps.

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 runs and collects a single authorized executable within a project, using the Collector broker. It distinguishes itself from broader collection tools by emphasizing the explicit authorization and the restricted broker, making the purpose concrete.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like collect_profile or plan_automatic_collection. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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