check_docker_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (checking status and port binding) and implies a non-mutating operation, but it omits details like return format, error behavior, or what happens if the container is not found or expectedPort is omitted.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Checks whether') and avoids redundancy. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's core 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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and error handling. It only states what is checked, leaving the agent uncertain about the result format and edge cases like missing containers or optional port usage.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it rephrases the expectedPort concept but does not clarify the behavior when expectedPort is not provided or how containerName is resolved.

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: checking if a container is running and if the expected port is bound on the host. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like ping, check_pnpm_workspace, and diagnose_stuck_process.

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?

The description implies usage: use this when you need to verify a container's running state and port binding. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving usage guidance to inference.

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