docker_inspect

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral scope beyond annotations by listing the categories returned and explicitly noting that environment variable values are never included, which matters for secret handling. It does not cover other operational details such as remote-server execution behavior, though the schema partially documents that parameter.

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 and front-loads the main purpose before adding the environment-variable exclusion. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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 simple read-only inspection tool with fully described schema parameters and annotation-covered safety, the description is sufficiently complete: it lists what is summarized and discloses an important omission. It does not describe return structure, but there is no output schema, so that gap is minor rather than critical.

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 both the container name and optional remote server are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or semantics beyond the implicit single-container focus, so the baseline of 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 gives a specific verb, resource, and scope: it summarizes a single Docker container's image, state, restart policy, ports, mounts, networks, and health. This is clearly more specific than docker_list, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state how it differs from docker_stats, docker_top, or docker_logs.

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 the tool is for inspecting one container because it summarizes container details, but it does not state when to use it instead of docker_list, docker_stats, docker_logs, or docker_top. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided.

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