container_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the breadth of returned data (config, state, network, mounts, env vars, resource limits) and noting equivalence to `docker inspect`.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage guidance, parameter semantics, and return type are all covered without redundancy. The most important scoping words ('single container') are front-loaded, and the alternatives are listed compactly.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives complete information: how to identify the container, what the response contains, and which sibling tools to use instead. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke the tool is missing.

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 input schema provides only a bare string parameter with 0% coveragecell coverage. The description fully compensates by documenting that `id_or_name` accepts a full id, short id, or name, which is exactly the semantic nuance an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Return the full inspect detail for a single container.' It clearly scopes the tool to one container and distinguishes it from enumerating containers or retrieving logs/stats, all in the first sentences.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you need complete information about one container,' and names alternatives with conditions: 'To enumerate many containers use container_list instead... For just logs or stats use container_logs / container_stats.' No inference is required.

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