get_docker_container_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only via the Docker API', which is a key behavioral trait. It also clarifies the temporal scope ('since it started'). However, it does not disclose potential error cases or permission requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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 long, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core function and immediately follows with usage guidance.

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 simple one-parameter schema and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core behavior and usage. It could mention prerequisites like Docker daemon access, but that is a common assumption. Overall, it is complete enough for this simple tool.

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 100% for container_id, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it does not mention that it accepts names or IDs, which the schema already states).

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' with a clear resource ('filesystem changes in a container') and scope ('since it started'), listing the types of changes (added, modified, deleted). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_docker_container_logs or get_docker_container_stats.

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 phrase 'Use to see what a container wrote to its writable layer' provides clear usage context. It implies when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The context is sufficient for a single-purpose read-only tool.

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