panelica_docker_get_v1_docker_containers_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the required scope 'docker:read' and 'Read-only' status, which gives useful context beyond annotations without duplication.

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?

Extremely concise: 'Get container' followed by essential metadata (HTTP method, category, scopes, read-only). Every element serves a purpose and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter read operation with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely adequate. It lacks a mention of return format or what the container details include, but without an output schema this is a minor gap given the simplicity of the operation.

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% with one parameter 'id' described as 'Path parameter: id'. The description doesn't add extra details about what format the id should be, but with full schema coverage the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Beschreibung: "Get container". Clear verb+resource combination, HTTP method and path shown. However, the description doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like docker_get_v1_docker_containers_id_stats or docker_get_v1_docker_containers (list), so it doesn't fully differentiate.

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 description provides context via HTTP method, category, and required scopes, but no explicit guidance comparing it to related tools like listing containers or getting container stats. Context is implied rather than explicit.

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