docker_ps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the command executed and that it runs on a remote VPS, implying a read-only status check. While it does not detail error handling or output structure, the core behavior is transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and including the exact command and usage intent. Every sentence earns its place with 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 simple status-checking tool with a single well-documented parameter, the description covers purpose, command, and usage. The mention of JSON output compensates for the lack of an output schema, making the tool fully understandable in context.

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 schema already documents the single 'project' parameter with a description of what it is (local path to project folder). With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no additional parameter semantics, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: showing the status of all Docker containers for the project on the remote VPS. It names the exact command executed ('docker compose ps --format json') and explicitly says it is used to check which containers are running, distinguishing it from sibling tools like docker_logs or docker_stats.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use to check which containers are running.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately when checking container status.

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