docker_list

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

With no annotations provided (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'lists' containers, implying a read-only operation, which is consistent. The description doesn't add any additional behavioral context such as whether it can be slow with many containers, whether it requires Docker daemon access, or any side effects. It is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence with no filler or redundant words. Every word is meaningful and immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded and sized perfectly for a simple list tool.

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 the low complexity of the tool (one boolean parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. However, it could mention that the result lists container IDs, names, states, or other details to set expectations. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on the return fields would improve completeness. The 100% schema coverage partially compensates.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter (all). The description doesn't detail the 'all' parameter, but the schema already provides a clear description ('Show all containers (including stopped). Default: true'). Since the schema covers the parameter well, the description doesn't need to repeat it. The description adds no extra meaning, but given high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and it earns a 4 because it's clean and doesn't introduce confusion.

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 uses a clear verb-resource structure ('List all Docker containers'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like docker_start, docker_stop, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly state that this is limited to containers and not images or other Docker resources, though the name implies it. The purpose is clear but lacks a small degree of specificity about scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like docker_stats, docker_logs, or docker_images. Given the sibling tools cover many Docker operations, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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