container_top

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and '[READ]' merely restates that. The 'like docker top' analogy does add useful behavioral context (a process snapshot rather than a stream or full inspect), but nothing is said about output shape, live-ness, or failure modes for a stopped container.

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?

One line of purpose followed by terse per-argument notes; the reader gets the operation and both parameters without a wasted clause. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema but keeps the definition self-contained.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and readOnlyHint coverage, the definition is functional: both params are explained and the operation is clear. It still leaves the agent guessing how this differs from container_stats/inspect_container and what the response contains.

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 carries the burden and largely does: container_id is documented as 'Container id or name' (broader than the bare 'Container Id' title), and target is explained as a config target name with 'omit for the default', which the schema's anyOf/null default does not convey.

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+resource: processes running inside a container, with the 'like docker top' analogy immediately pinning down the semantics. It distinguishes itself implicitly from container_stats and inspect_container, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

Only the '[READ]' prefix signals the read-only nature and thus the general context for using it. There is no statement of when to prefer this over container_stats, inspect_container, or container_logs, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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