container_stats

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds key behavioral context: it returns the raw engine stats payload, is non-streaming (one snapshot), and CPU percent must be computed from delta between `cpu_stats` and `precpu_stats`. This goes beyond annotations usefully.

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-organized, with a front-loaded purpose sentence, a critical caveat about CPU computation, explicit alternatives, and a compact args/returns listing. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the raw payload fields, non-streaming behavior, and CPU delta caveat. However, it does not mention what happens if the container is not running or not found, and does not give example values, though the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 has zero description coverage and the only parameter is `id_or_name`. The description says 'The container id or name', which clarifies the parameter's meaning but adds little beyond the parameter name itself. No examples or formatting details are provided.

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 gets a one-point-in-time, non-streaming resource-usage snapshot for a container. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like `container_top` (process listing) and the pre-computed `docker-stats://` summary.

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 explicitly tells when to use alternatives: prefer `docker-stats://{id_or_name}` for a human-readable summary and `container_top` for process listing. This gives clear decision guidance over siblings.

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