system_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context about the returned data: container/image counts, storage/logging drivers, swarm role, and warnings. It doesn't mention error conditions or daemon unavailability, but for a read-only info tool this is sufficient.

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 three sentences: the purpose, the scope with alternative tools, and the return type. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (no params) and the annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior and return structure. It lists example keys from the returned dict, which compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 tool takes no parameters (0 params, 0 required), so the baseline is 4. No parameter explanation is needed.

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 'Return system-wide Docker information, like `docker info`,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from system_version and system_df by explicitly naming those alternatives for version and disk usage respectively.

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 states when to use sibling tools: 'Use `system_version` for version/API level and `system_df` for disk usage,' which tells the agent when NOT to use this tool. It also describes what this tool covers ('daemon runtime state'), providing clear context for selection.

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