get_crictl_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the transport (SSH from a remote Linux host), the output format (JSON), the root requirement, and the redaction behavior for environment variable values while preserving names. It omits things like what happens on timeout or host-key failure and does not explicitly state the call is read-only, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the prerequisite and the permission/redaction caveats. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so the enumerated return fields are a bonus rather than a requirement, and the operational caveats are solid. The substantive gap is the SSH connection surface — six authentication/connection parameters are undocumented anywhere, which is enough to impede a correct first invocation.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. Only the container_id is clarified (obtain it from get_crictl_ps); host, user, port, key_path, password, timeout, and accept_new_hostkey are left entirely unexplained, including how key-based vs password auth should be chosen.

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 ('Inspects a SPECIFIC CRI container ... crictl inspect, JSON') and the phrase 'SPECIFIC CRI container' plus the enumerated payload (state, exit code, mounts, log path, pid, runtime spec) clearly separates it from the sibling get_crictl_inspect_image and from the list-oriented get_crictl_ps.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow ('Use get_crictl_ps first to find the container ID') and a permission caveat ('Usually requires root'). It stops short of saying when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_crictl_logs or get_docker_inspect, so it is strong but not complete.

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