homebutler

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It compensates partially by specifying return fields (status, image, ports) since no output schema exists. However, omits safety characteristics (read-only nature), error conditions, or pagination 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?

Nine words, single sentence with front-loaded verb. Every word earns its place—no repetition of tool name or tautology. Appropriate density for a simple listing tool.

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 single-parameter tool without annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers the essential contract by specifying what data is returned. Could be improved by noting read-only behavior or local vs remote execution defaults.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'server' parameter. Description adds no parameter-specific context, but baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents the optional remote server behavior fully.

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?

Specific verb 'List' with resource 'Docker containers'. The clause 'with their status, image, and ports' distinguishes this as an inventory/overview tool versus siblings like docker_logs (detail retrieval) and docker_restart/docker_stop (actions).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative recommendations. Usage is implied through naming convention (docker_list vs docker_logs) and the mention of returned fields, but lacks explicit guidance like 'Use this for overview; use docker_logs for troubleshooting specific containers'.

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