container_restart_summary

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safe-read profile; the description confirms [READ] and adds useful behavior that results are ordered worst-first and include restart counts and exit codes. It does not describe limits, pagination, or output format, so it remains modest beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose and keeps argument notes to the two parameters with defaults. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a low-complexity, read-only summary tool with no output schema, the description supplies the needed purpose and both optional parameters. It could say more about the returned summary format, but not enough to block correct 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 carry parameter meaning, and it does: all_states True inspects all containers while False limits to running; target names a configured target and can be omitted for the default. 'Target name from config' is slightly vague, preventing a 5.

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?

States a specific resource (containers) and computed metric (restart-count + exit-code summary) with ordering (worst-first). A reader can distinguish it from restart_container or restart_loop_rca, though no sibling is named explicitly, so 4 not 5.

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 diagnostic use through 'summary' and 'worst-first' but never states when to choose this over restart_loop_rca, restart_container, or list_containers. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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