interceptor_docker_attach

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It correctly indicates the tool modifies the container (injecting env vars and CA cert), and the 'restart' mode stops and restarts the container. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, permissions required, or success/failure signals, which would enhance transparency.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then detail the two modes. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not mention return values, error conditions, or what happens after injection (e.g., container remains running?). This lack of contextual information for a mutation tool is a notable gap, reducing completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond schema: it rephrases the enum descriptions but does not explain what values to use or constraints. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: injecting proxy env vars and CA certificate into a Docker container. It distinguishes two modes ('exec' vs 'restart'), making it easy to understand the core operation and differentiate from siblings like interceptor_docker_detach.

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 description explains the two modes and their basic behavior, but lacks guidance on when to choose one over the other or prerequisites (e.g., container must be running). No explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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