container_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it is non-streaming, returns raw engine stats, and mentions that CPU percent must be computed from the delta. No contradictions. While it could also mention that the snapshot is instantaneous and may have minimal overhead, the description sufficiently supplements the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then key behavioral details, then alternatives, then parameter definition and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. The information density is high and front-loaded.

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 (one parameter) and the presence of annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavioral traits, parameter semantics, alternatives, and return value structure (listing returned fields). Without an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns.

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 coverage is 0% (parameter has no description). The description adds meaning: 'id_or_name - The container id or name' and 'args: id_or_name - The container id or name'. While brief, it clarifies what the parameter expects, compensating for the schema's lack of documentation. However, it could be slightly more specific about acceptable formats (e.g., full ID vs. short ID).

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's purpose: 'Get one point-in-time resource-usage snapshot for a container (non-streaming).' It specifies the verb (Get), resource (container), and scope (one point-in-time, non-streaming), effectively distinguishing it from streaming or continuous monitoring tools.

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 explicit guidance: 'For a pre-computed human-readable summary prefer the docker-stats://{id_or_name} resource; for a process listing use container_top.' This directly tells when to use alternatives, and the CPU computation note helps users interpret the output correctly.

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