inspect_container

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

The description implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is appropriate. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error responses. The description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without excess words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. It could be slightly expanded to include parameter or output hints without losing 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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not specify what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., config, state, network settings), which is critical for an agent to interpret the response. The minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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 three parameters (env_id, agent_token, container_id) with zero schema description coverage (0%). The description does not explain the meaning, format, or role of any parameter. The agent has no guidance beyond parameter names and types.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific container' clearly states the action (get) and resource (container information). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like list_containers, but does not differentiate from other inspect tools (e.g., inspect_image, inspect_network) beyond the resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_container_logs, get_container_stats). The description does not mention prerequisites, suitable contexts, or exclusions.

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