tool_list

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

Annotations already say readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further: "Read-only, never raises on a query matching nothing, and always registered even when DOCKER_MCP_SERVER_DISABLE drops every domain." It also discloses that rows are summaries, not definitions, and how `hidden_by_configuration` works. This adds behavioral context well beyond the structural hints.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, then structured into args and returns sections. It is dense but every sentence adds value, covering edge cases, comparisons, and return structure without redundancy. Length is justified by the tool's complexity and 3 parameters.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a detailed returns dict: "{matched, tools, domains, no_domain, hidden_by_configuration, switches, filters}" and explains key semantics like `domains` keys and `no_domain`. It also covers configuration-related behavior and definitive negative matches, making the tool fully self-explanatory.

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:` block fully compensates: "domain - Exact domain name (see any result's `domains` key); omit for every domain,” plus category and keyword semantics. It explains categorical enum values and how omission behaves, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource: "List this server's registered tools as compact rows, filtered by domain, category or keyword." It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as a mirror of the MCP resource and noting "docs_lookup covers external Docker reference documentation." The scope ('this server's own surface') and unique abilities (e.g., filtering by destructive category) make its 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?

Explicit usage scenarios are provided: "Use it to brief on an unfamiliar area (`domain="buildx"`)... to check blast radius (`category="destructive"`), or to establish that nothing matches." It contrasts with `docs_lookup` for external docs and clarifies that dropped/disabled tools are absent rather than flagged. These are clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidelines with named alternatives.

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