ssh_docker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that build runs in the background and implies ps/images/logs are read-oriented actions, but it omits details like auth requirements, side effects of build, and failure behavior.

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 focused sentences with no filler: the first states scope and the second lists the supported actions. It is front-loaded and every phrase 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?

For a multi-action tool with 12 parameters, the action list plus fully described schema is largely sufficient to invoke correctly. It lacks explicit usage guidance and output details, but no output schema is present and the schema supplies most invocation information.

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%, so every parameter is already documented. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 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 names a specific scope – Docker on a remote server – and enumerates the four supported actions (ps, images, build, logs). It is clear enough to distinguish this tool from the SSH sibling tools, though 'Manage' is somewhat broad.

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 makes it clear this is the Docker-specific remote tool, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over alternatives like ssh_execute, or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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