Docker Request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it declares this is a write operation, notes the CLI auto-adds prefix validation and auto-generates req/reqid, and warns that body cannot contain those fields. It omits auth requirements, error behavior, and reversibility, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 write-nature and fallback role are front-loaded, followed by routing examples and then the constraint/safety notes. Sentences are dense but each carries information; nothing is redundant, though the probe guidance could be tighter.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers routing, body constraints, and a write-safety precondition. For a 6-parameter write tool with no annotations, the main remaining gap is auth/permission behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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, but the description adds real meaning: endpoint takes only the bare endpoint name (prefix added/validated by CLI) and body must be a JSON object without req/reqid. These constraints exceed what the schema fields state.

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 names a concrete verb (调用/call) and resource (any appcgi.dockermgr.* endpoint) and explicitly labels itself the fallback entry for write operations. It distinguishes itself from the fixed-command siblings (docker_containers, docker_compose_start, etc.) by naming exactly which endpoints belong here.

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 when to use it (endpoints not covered by fixed commands), gives concrete endpoint examples (networkList, composeContainers, composeStart/Stop), and prescribes a workflow precondition: do a read-only probe (e.g. composeList) before Compose/network/system writes. Explicit when-to-use and a safety step beat most definitions.

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