container_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by enumerating the exact categories of data returned (config, state, network settings, mounts, env vars, resource limits) and noting equivalence to `docker inspect`, which gives useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with a purpose sentence, usage paragraph, and args/returns sections. It is slightly wordy—e.g., 'full inspect detail' and 'complete information about one container' are redundant—but every sentence otherwise serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simple scope (one parameter), good annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is complete. It tells what the return value is ('dict - Full container inspect attrs'), how to invoke it, and how it relates to siblings, leaving little ambiguity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining the sole parameter: 'id_or_name - Container id (full or short) or name'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema type (string) and gives clear format expectations.

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 clearly states the tool 'Return the full inspect detail for a single container', specifying the resource and scope. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming `container_list`, `container_logs`, and `container_stats`, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you need complete information about one container' and directly names alternatives for other cases ('To enumerate many containers use `container_list`', 'For just logs or stats use `container_logs` / `container_stats`'). This is excellent usage direction.

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