inspect_container

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

Only indicates it is a read operation via '[READ]', but no annotations are provided to confirm. No details on error behavior, permissions, or side effects. Minimal disclosure beyond the operation type.

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?

Very concise: two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential aspects: operation type, scope, and parameter meanings. Could mention return format (e.g., JSON) but still sufficient for basic use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'container_id' as 'Container id or name.' and 'target' as 'Target name from config; omit for the default.', adding meaning beyond the bare type definitions.

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 a read operation ('[READ]') and specifies what is inspected ('config, state, mounts, network'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_containers' (list vs inspect) and 'inspect_network'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use 'inspect_container' over 'container_top' or 'inspect_network'. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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