list_containers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all Docker containers' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it shows running/stopped containers, requires permissions, returns structured data, or has pagination/formatting behavior. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool with no parameters. Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally complete but lacks behavioral context that would be helpful without annotations. For a basic read operation, it meets minimum requirements but doesn't provide guidance on output format or usage relative to siblings, leaving room for improvement.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score. No additional semantic value could be added beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('List') and resource ('all Docker containers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'list_images' or 'list_composes' beyond specifying the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'restart_container', 'start_container', and 'stop_container' available, there's no indication whether this is for monitoring, inventory, or prerequisite operations. The agent must infer usage context independently.

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