docker_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Summarize' implies a non-mutating read operation, and it explicitly discloses that environment variable values are never included, which is a useful privacy/limitation signal. It does not cover error behavior or prerequisites, but the key transparency is present.

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?

One sentence with a dense, well-scoped list of result facets and a high-value exclusion about environment variables. Every word earns its place, and the most important use information is 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description communicates what the result will cover and a key limitation. It could explicitly note that this is read-only/non-mutating, but 'Summarize' conveys that sufficiently.

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 parameters ('name' and 'server') are already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Summarize') and resource ('Docker container'), and enumerates the exact facets returned: image, state, restart policy, ports, mounts, networks, and health. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like docker_list, docker_logs, docker_stats, and docker_top.

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 listed facets make the usage context clear: use when you need a container's configuration/status summary. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended use is strongly implied by the description.

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