Docker Container Create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write nature ('写操作') and, more valuably, a non-obvious behavioral trap: trim-cli re-splits --cmd on whitespace, so multi-word commands silently corrupt or hang. It does not mention auth/permission needs or failure behavior, but the cmd caveat is exactly the kind of gotcha annotations can't convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then capabilities, then management routing, then the cmd warning. The warning section is longer than the rest but each worked example prevents a real failure mode, so it earns its space; only mild redundancy keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the 14 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description covers purpose, post-creation workflow, and the critical cmd edge case; it could add auth/permission context for a write tool, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining the semantics behind the cmd parameter (why each element cannot contain spaces) and providing a workaround, which the schema only asserts without explaining.

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 first line gives a specific verb and resource ('创建 Docker 容器') and explicitly flags it as a write operation. It then names the capabilities (port/mount mapping, env vars, memory/CPU limits, restart policy) and routes to siblings, so an agent can distinguish it from docker_containers and docker_container_action without opening a schema.

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?

It states what to do after creation (use docker_containers(--all) and docker_container_action) and gives an explicit when-to-use-an-alternative rule: when arguments contain spaces, switch to docker_request(endpoint='containerCreate') with a raw Cmd array. Concrete conditions and a named fallback, not implied usage.

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