get_container_stats

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the tool gets live stats and may fail with 404, but does not detail the stats returned, side effects, or permissions required. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 two sentences with immediate purpose statement and a helpful note. No wasted words; the note is front-loaded after the main intent. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should at least hint at what stats are returned (e.g., CPU, memory). It fails to do so, and the 0% parameter coverage leaves the agent guessing about inputs. The workaround note adds some value but overall completeness is low.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters (env_id, agent_token, container_id). The tool requires container_id, but the description omits this and other parameter meanings, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema.

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 'Get live resource usage stats for a container,' specifying a verb (Get), resource (resource usage stats), and scope (for a container). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_container_logs' or 'inspect_container'.

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 when live stats are needed but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or exclude conditions. It provides error-handling guidance (SSH workaround on 404), but lacks comparison with similar tools.

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