List all containers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the trivial phrase 'on the host' and otherwise repeats the title. It does not disclose behavior such as whether stopped containers are included (relevant to the `all` parameter), whether pagination exists, or that an active SSH session is required. With annotations present, the description contributes little beyond them.

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 short and front-loaded, but it wastes a sentence by repeating the title: 'List all containers' and 'Lists all Docker containers on the host' say essentially the same thing. It could be condensed into a single sentence without losing any information, though it is not overly verbose.

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 zero parameter documentation in the schema, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain the output format, how the `all` parameter behaves, what sessionId refers to, or prerequisite conditions such as an active SSH session. An agent would need to infer these from the tool name and sibling tools, which is insufficient for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It fails to explain the meaning of the `all` boolean (likely to include stopped containers) or the `sessionId` string (which likely identifies an SSH session to the Docker host). The description's use of 'all containers' is ambiguous and does not clarify parameter semantics at all.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all Docker containers on the host'), making the purpose explicit. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_container_details because it emphasizes listing all rather than retrieving a single container's details, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_container_details should be used for individual container details, or that sessionId must be an active Docker SSH session. There are no exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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