Docker container health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states read-only determinism, the absence of socket/CLI/probe access, no mutation or recovery authority, no root cause inference, and the exact meaning of UNKNOWN vs UNAVAILABLE. It even clarifies that absence of evidence is never read as HEALTHY. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 longer than minimal but every clause earns its place by constraining an agent's behavior around a nuanced read-only tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and statuses, then systematically lists exclusions. The no-shell/no-SSH/no-network/no-secrets enumeration is slightly redundant as a group but serves as a strong safety reminder.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, this description is complete: it defines the evidence source, status semantics, exclusions, and input constraint. The output schema covers return values, so no additional description is needed there. Nothing an agent needs to correctly select and invoke this tool is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is already high, and the description strengthens it by stating the input must be exactly {} and that the agent can never select a container, host, path, or socket. This prevents hallucinated parameter usage better than the schema alone.

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 opens with a direct question and immediately states the tool returns a deterministic advisory verdict from a specific evidence source. It clearly distinguishes Docker/container health from its siblings by explicitly stating it does not access the Docker socket, run the Docker CLI, or probe containers. The status vocabulary (HEALTHY | DEGRADED | UNKNOWN | UNAVAILABLE) and the resource scope are unambiguous.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for operator-configured Docker health evidence only and explicitly lists what the tool does not do (no shell, no SSH, no network, no mutation). It does not name sibling tools or provide explicit conditions for when to choose this tool over engineering.vps.health or engineering.app.health, but the boundaries are strongly implied.

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