get_docker_container_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Read-only via the Docker API') and failure conditions ('fatal if the daemon is unreachable or the container is unknown'), which are important behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions or other edge cases, but for a read-only inspection tool, this covers the key risks.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: outlining the return content, disclosing behavior, and providing usage guidance. It is concise, front-loaded with the core function, and contains no irrelevant information.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to describe return values in detail. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and failure modes, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The distinction from get_docker_info adds important context within the sibling toolset.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter, container_id, as 'container name or ID' (100% coverage). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Returns a container's state, config, env, mounts, and network settings.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates from get_docker_info by noting 'Use to inspect one container; get_docker_info to list them.' This makes the purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from siblings.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use to inspect one container; get_docker_info to list them.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (inspecting a single container) and when to use an alternative (listing containers). It effectively communicates both the intended use and the boundary with a sibling tool.

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