plan_automatic_collection

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the plan is 'short-lived' and 'PID-bound', and crucially that it does not sample or attach. This helps the agent understand the side-effect-free, planning-only nature. It does not contradict 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a clarifying exclusion. Every word contributes; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and zero schema-level descriptions, this two-sentence description is under-specified. It does not explain how this plan relates to execute_collection_plan, what the parameters control, or what the output plan will contain. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing usage and parameter 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%, putting the full burden on the description to explain parameter semantics. However, the description mentions no parameter names or guidance, not even the required pid beyond implying it via 'PID-bound'. The many parameters (mode, events, call_graph, frequency_hz, etc.) are left entirely unexplained.

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 function with a specific verb (create) and resource (short-lived PID-bound collection plan). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it does not sample or attach, which differentiates it from execution tools like execute_collection_plan or collect_profile.

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 phrase 'This does not sample or attach' provides clear context that this tool is for planning only, not actual data collection. While it does not name alternative tools explicitly, the sibling naming conventions (e.g., execute_collection_plan) make the intended workflow reasonably clear. However, it could more explicitly state to use this before execute_collection_plan.

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