overview

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

The '[READ]' prefix and 'one-shot' language add context beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, and the triage framing is useful. However, it doesn't state whether the call is expensive, whether it aggregates live or cached data, or any rate/permission constraints – moderate added value for a read-only tool.

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 one-shot scope, then the triage instruction, then the single arg. No filler sentences; everything earns its place.

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 one-param read-only triage tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, placement in workflow, and the parameter. Minor gap: no indication of what the rollup output looks like, but no output schema exists to explain it.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the single 'target' parameter. It does state 'Target name from config; omit for the default,' which meaningfully explains the parameter and the omit-default behavior, compensating for the bare 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 (overview/rollup) and enumerates exactly what is returned: version, container state rollup, and disk. This distinguishes it from single-resource siblings like inspect_container or system_version.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first to triage a container host before drilling into a specific container, image, or volume,' naming the alternative workflow and the decision point that selects this tool.

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