docker_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact command ('docker stats --no-stream --no-trunc --format json'), making the behavior fully transparent. It doesn't discuss permissions or side effects, but the operation is inherently read-only and the command itself implies a non-streaming snapshot.

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 concise, well-structured sentences: first states the purpose, second gives the command and usage. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, how it does it, and when to use it. It doesn't describe the return format in prose, but the command includes '--format json', which implies the output structure.

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 covers the single parameter with a clear description (local path to project folder), so the description adds no additional parameter-level information. The baseline of 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool reports CPU and RAM consumption for project containers, which is a specific and distinct function from sibling tools like docker_logs or docker_ps. It even names the exact command executed, reinforcing the purpose.

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?

It includes a direct usage instruction: 'Use to check server load,' giving clear context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare with alternative tools, so it falls short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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