Docker Containers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing about read-only nature, pagination, auth requirements, or how host/port/profile are resolved. For a tool that reaches out to an NAS host, this is a complete absence of behavioral context.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no padding or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects missing content rather than disciplined editing.

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 explained, but for a five-parameter tool with zero annotations and no usage guidance the description is far too thin. Nothing tells the agent how this listing differs from the other container/compose listing tools.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no meaning beyond that — it does not hint at the role of all_containers, host, or profile.

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 states a verb (列出) and resource (Docker 容器), so the operation is identifiable, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and gives no scope. It offers no differentiation from siblings such as docker_compose_containers, docker_container_inspect, or docker_stats, which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many docker_* siblings. The agent is left to infer entirely from the name which listing tool to pick.

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