websex_docker_bench

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses behavioral traits: the container executes docker-bench-security 'directly with the supplied argv tokens' and 'shell parsing is never used', which is real execution-model context an agent can't get from the schema. It stops short of stating side effects, whether the run is read-only, or how failures/exit codes surface.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded ('Run docker bench ...') followed by execution detail and operational guidance. No filler, though the namespace/path sentence is slightly low-value relative to the undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a security-benchmark launcher with 2 required and 2 optional parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description covers the execution model but leaves parameter contracts and read-only/side-effect semantics under-specified.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It obliquely explains 'argv tokens' (arguments) and relative paths for 'engagement artifacts' (working_directory), but leaves stdin and engagement_id completely undocumented as to format or meaning.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Run docker bench', executing 'docker-bench-security') so the agent knows exactly what is invoked. It implicitly distinguishes from the k8s/cloud siblings (kube_bench, trivy, checkov) by calling out the docker-focused benchmark, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: it explains it runs from 'the selected engagement namespace' and that relative paths should be used for engagement artifacts, which orients the agent. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the many scanning siblings (kube_bench, trivy, prowler, scout_suite), and no exclusions.

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