list_containers

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates it. The description does add genuine output context the annotations lack ('bucketed by state, with compact rows'), but says nothing about ordering, truncation, or what a compact row contains.

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 verb+resource+output shape, then uses a compact Args block with no filler sentences. Slightly terse on the target parameter's meaning, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only two-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers both parameters and gives a sense of the return structure (bucketed by state). It is sufficient to invoke correctly, with only minor gaps around state values and result ordering.

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 does so for both params: all_states is defined (True = all containers, False = running only) and target is defined (config target name, omit for default). Meaning is added beyond the bare anyOf/boolean schema.

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 ('List containers') plus output shape ('bucketed by state, with compact rows'), which distinguishes it from inspection siblings like inspect_container and container_stats. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 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?

Usage is only implied through the all_states flag semantics (True = all, False = running); there is no statement of when to reach for list_containers versus list_pods, inspect_container, or container_restart_summary. The default behavior is clear but the routing guidance is absent.

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