Docker Stats

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. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it explain the connection/auth implications of the host/port/scheme/profile parameters, which are the main behavioral concern for this tool.

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 sentence with zero padding and the resource front-loaded, which is structurally fine. It is however under-specified rather than genuinely concise, since essential scoping information is simply absent.

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, but for a tool with zero annotation coverage and ambiguous scope against docker_container_stats, the description omits too much. The agent lacks the information needed to select and call this tool confidently.

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%, with all four parameters (host, port, scheme, profile) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter behavior or defaults, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a verb (查看) and resource (Docker 资源占用统计), so the general purpose is understandable. However, it gives no scope detail and does not distinguish itself from the sibling docker_container_stats (or monitor_cpu/monitor_memory), leaving the agent unable to tell whether this is host-wide or per-container.

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 mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative. With docker_container_stats and the monitor_* tools sitting alongside it, the description provides nothing to help the agent choose correctly.

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