container_list

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: default returns only running containers, full inspect payloads per container unless sparse=True, managed_only filters on a specific label and combines with filters, and ignore_removed handles race conditions. No contradiction with 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 brief intro, usage notes, a categorized args list, and a returns section. Each line is informative and necessary given the tool's complexity and lack of schema descriptions.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, but the description covers all parameters, return types, edge cases (e.g., sparse, ignore_removed), and differentiates from sibling tools. It is fully self-contained for effective selection and invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description's 'args' section thoroughly explains all 8 parameters (all, since, before, limit, filters, sparse, ignore_removed, managed_only), including defaults and effects. It also clarifies the return format, compensating fully for the schema gap.

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's function: 'List containers on the daemon (running only by default).' It distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly mentioning compose_ps for compose projects and service_ps for swarm services, making the scope obvious.

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 guidance on when to use alternatives: 'For a compose project compose_ps groups containers by service; for swarm services use service_ps (tasks may live on other nodes).' This helps the agent choose the correct tool for different scenarios.

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