resolve_docker_target

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by naming the sources consulted (Docker, /proc, PID start time, namespaces, cgroup identity, UID policy) and explicitly stating that profiling is not performed. It does not address failure cases, but this is consistent with the safe read-only profile.

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 one dense sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Every phrase contributes to defining the operation, though the long list of resolution sources makes it somewhat heavy to parse. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, but the description omits usage conditions and optional-parameter semantics. In a large sibling set, an agent still lacks clear guidance on when this should be called instead of collection, discovery, or profiling tools, making the definition incomplete for confident invocation.

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 must compensate, but it never explains the relationship or selection logic for host_pid, container_pid, and container_reference. It mentions PID start time as a resolution criterion but does not map that to the parameters. The property names are partly self-explanatory, but the description does not add meaningful parameter-level guidance.

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 states a specific action ('Re-resolve'), a bounded resource ('one container process'), and a precise set of resolution criteria (Docker, /proc, PID start time, namespaces, cgroup identity, UID policy). The phrase 'without profiling it' distinguishes it from profiling- and collection-oriented siblings. It is not a 5 because 're-resolve' itself is not defined, leaving some ambiguity about what the operation produces.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as collect_docker_target, discover_docker_processes, or analyze_profile. 'Re-resolve' weakly implies a follow-up to an earlier resolution, and 'without profiling it' implies a lightweight purpose, but the agent is left to infer the actual selection conditions.

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