Get Container Config

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description confirms the read operation and lists specific fields returned, adding some context but not elaborating on other behavioral traits like permissions or error behavior.

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?

The description is a single 12-word sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every part is informative and 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 simple read tool with one optional parameter, the description is fairly complete. It lists the specific configuration items returned. Minor omission: does not clarify behavior when routerId is omitted vs provided, but the schema param description covers that. Output schema is absent but the description mitigates it by listing fields.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the optional 'routerId' parameter. The description does not need to add further parameter details, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Read' and specifies the resource 'global container configuration' along with exact items (registry URL, RAM high-water mark, veth interface). This distinguishes it from write siblings like manage_container_config.

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 description implies usage for reading configuration but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., manage_container_config for modifications). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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