container_inspect

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 by specifying 'full inspect detail' and enumerating the types of data included (config, state, network settings, mounts, env vars, resource limits), plus noting it is equivalent to docker inspect. This goes beyond the bare annotation values, though no error/edge-case behavior is mentioned.

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?

Description is well-structured: a direct summary sentence, followed by usage guidance with alternatives, then a compact args/returns block. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only tool, the description covers purpose, when to use (and when not), parameter semantics, and return type (dict equivalent to docker inspect). No output schema exists, yet the description adequately conveys what the user gets, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema only defines id_or_name as a string, but the description adds 'Container id (full or short) or name' in the args section, providing crucial meaning about accepted formats. With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Return the full inspect detail for a single container.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming container_list, container_logs, and container_stats as alternatives for different use cases.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this when you need complete information about one container' and directs to container_list for enumerating many containers and to container_logs/container_stats for logs or stats. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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