get_docker_status

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 adds the important caveat that Docker may not be available, but it does not describe what happens when Docker is missing, what the returned status looks like, or that stopped containers are excluded by default beyond the schema hint.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, resource, and key availability caveat. Every word earns its place with no redundant elaboration.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read-only tool, and the description plus schema cover the core usage: what it does, when it applies, and the only parameter. With no output schema, a bit more detail about return format or failure behavior would improve completeness, but the missing information is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single optional boolean parameter includeAll and documents its default value. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of Docker containers'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is naturally distinguished from sibling host-level tools like get_system_resources and list_processes.

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 includes a clear precondition: use it if Docker is available. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use conditions, but the Docker-specific scope makes selection among the sibling tools straightforward.

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