add_docker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add Docker configuration' without revealing whether files will be overwritten, what project files are modified, whether it is destructive, or what side effects occur. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies an existing project.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, which is good. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no other context; it is concise but not appropriately sized to convey necessary information.

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?

The tool is relatively simple but has no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage. The description fails to explain what Docker files will be created, what the parameters control, or what the outcome looks like. This is incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (hasDb, language, framework). While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning about allowed values, defaults, or how they affect the Docker configuration. The burden is not met.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Add Docker configuration') and a specific resource ('existing project'), which distinguishes it from tools like scaffold_project that create new projects. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other project-modifying tools such as add_tests, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies use on existing projects but provides no explicit 'when to use' guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like scaffold_project or add_tests. The user is left to infer when this tool is appropriate versus other project-related tools.

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