List Docker Hosts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Returns all') with no side effects, but does not disclose any extra behavioral details such as sorting, filtering, pagination, or secret inclusion behavior (which is left to the parameter schema). For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, directly states the action and purpose, and includes a relevant relationship to monitors without wasted words. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has one optional parameter, a clear schema, and an output schema (as indicated), the description sufficiently identifies what is returned and its relevance. It does not mention error conditions or output formatting, but these are covered by the output schema. For a straightforward list, completeness is strong, though not exhaustive.

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% with a detailed explanation for 'includeSecrets' including default behavior, security implications, and global override. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so it does not improve on the schema's already comprehensive documentation. Baseline 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 it 'Returns all docker daemon connections configured in Uptime Kuma' with context that these are referenced by monitors. The verb 'returns' and resource 'docker daemon connections' are specific, and the mention of monitors distinguishes it from sibling Docker host tools like add/update/delete/test.

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 retrieving configured Docker hosts and explicitly notes their role in monitors, but does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. While context is clear, there is no explicit exclusion or comparison to alternatives like listMonitors, which would earn a 5.

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