panelica_docker_get_v1_docker_containers_id_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method, required scope (docker:read), and a 'Read-only' confirmation. However, it omits notable behavioral traits such as whether the Docker stats endpoint returns a continuous stream versus a one-shot snapshot, which would be valuable for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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 description is compact and front-loaded with the purpose ('List stats'), followed by four lines that each earn their place: HTTP method/path, category, required scopes, and read-only status. Minor redundancy exists since 'List stats' repeats the annotation title, but overall there is no waste.

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-only tool with rich annotations, the definition is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema present, the description should indicate what the stats response contains or its shape (e.g., CPU/memory/network metrics, streaming behavior), which it does not. An agent would still be unsure what data to expect after calling this endpoint.

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% — the single parameter 'id' is documented as 'Path parameter: id'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies. The description does not clarify that id refers to a Docker container ID, but the tool name and HTTP path largely carry that information.

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 and resource ('List stats') with an HTTP path that clarifies it targets a specific container's stats. However, it doesn't specify what kind of stats (CPU, memory, network, etc.) and doesn't differentiate it from the many sibling stats endpoints (docker, nodejs_apps, python_apps, git, accounts, domains). The name helps, but the description itself is minimal.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of sibling tools like panelica_docker_get_v1_docker_containers (to first find container IDs), panelica_server_get_v1_server_metrics, or the other resource-specific stats endpoints. The Category and Required scopes lines provide context but no decision guidance.

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