get_container_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output content but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description adds some context over the schema but not enough for a higher score.

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, efficient sentence listing key aspects of the configuration. No wasted words or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (GET request, two parameters fully documented) and no output schema, the description adequately lists what the response covers. It could be more complete but is satisfactory.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. Per the guidelines, baseline is 3.

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 tool retrieves complete configuration of an LXC container, listing specific components (CPU, RAM, disks, network, status). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_containers' (listing containers) and 'get_vm_details' (likely for VMs).

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 fetching detailed container config but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings.

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