Validate Docker availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description's validation intent. The description does not add any behavioral details beyond what the annotations provide, such as what happens if Docker is unavailable or what the return value indicates. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation-based safety profile.

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 redundant: 'Validate Docker availability. Validates if Docker is available on the host.' The second sentence simply restates the first with different wording. It wastes words without adding information. A single sentence would suffice, so it is not concise.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description still leaves critical gaps. It does not explain what 'sessionId' refers to, what 'availability' means precisely, or what the result indicates (e.g., boolean, error). An agent cannot reliably call this tool or interpret its response based on the description alone.

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 no description for the required 'sessionId' parameter (schema description coverage is 0%). The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving its purpose and format entirely unexplained. Since the schema provides no clues, the description must compensate, but it fails to do so.

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 validates Docker availability on the host. It uses a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('Docker availability'), which distinguishes it from other tools that manage containers or sessions. However, it does not specify what 'availability' means (e.g., Docker daemon running, CLI present) or how it relates to sibling docker tools, so it lacks some precision.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when validation is needed, or which other tools (e.g., check_ssh_session_status) might be more appropriate. An agent receives no context to decide between this and similar validation tools.

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