container_stats

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this a safe read. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond annotations — that it is a one-shot, non-streaming snapshot that returns immediately rather than blocking. It omits error conditions, prerequisites (e.g. container must be running), and units/pagination, so the added value is modest.

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 [READ] tag and the core purpose in the first line, then a tight two-item Args block. No filler sentences, though the Args section is somewhat redundant with the already-legible parameter names.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (CPU%/memory% percentages) and how to call it. It still leaves gaps an agent might want — units, whether the container must be running, and how a missing/invalid container_id behaves.

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 the load, and it does: it explains that container_id accepts an id or name, and that target is a config target that defaults when omitted. This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema descriptions, though it adds no format examples.

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 verb and resource: a one-shot CPU%/memory% snapshot for a container. It is clear what it returns and its scope (stream=false), but it never names or contrasts with a sibling like container_top or inspect_container, so the agent must infer which stats tool fits.

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 '(stream=false)' and 'one-shot' framing implies when this is appropriate versus a streaming alternative, and 'omit for the default' gives default behavior for target. However no sibling tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance for selecting this over container_top or resource_pressure_analysis.

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