container_restart_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It correctly declares the operation as read-only via '[READ]' and describes the sorting behavior. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., all containers in the Docker host or a specific project) or any potential side effects, though read operations are unlikely to have any.

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 extremely concise, with no extraneous words. It uses a single-line summary and bullet-like parameter explanations. All content is relevant and front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and parameters. However, it lacks any mention of the output format (e.g., list of containers with counts), which would be helpful for an agent to understand the return structure.

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 compensates well. It explains both parameters: 'all_states' determines whether to inspect all containers or only running ones, and 'target' selects a config context. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and defaults.

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 it provides a 'restart-count + exit-code summary across containers, worst-first.' The '[READ]' prefix and sibling tool names like 'restart_container' and 'inspect_container' help distinguish it as a read-only aggregation tool.

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 implies usage for troubleshooting by noting 'worst-first' sorting, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'inspect_container' or 'container_stats'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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