get_devcontainer_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the DevContainer isn't found, or if there are rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get DevContainer status and information'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more specific to improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output format. For a simple read operation, this might suffice, but it doesn't fully leverage the opportunity to guide the agent effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'workspaceRoot' documented as 'Workspace root path' with a default of '.'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but since there's only one parameter and schema coverage is high, the baseline is appropriately met without needing extra compensation.

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 'Get DevContainer status and information' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('DevContainer status and information'), but it's somewhat vague about what specific information is retrieved. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_templates' or 'test_devcontainer' that might also provide status-related information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'build_devcontainer', 'test_devcontainer', and 'modify_devcontainer', there's no indication whether this is for checking current state, verifying configurations, or other specific contexts. No explicit when/when-not statements or alternative references are included.

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