container_inspect

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 merely states 'Display detailed information,' which is a basic read operation, but it does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions, response format, or scope of the information returned. The transparency is minimal and lacks context beyond the tool's core 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 that is front-loaded with the verb and object. It wastes no words and fully conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary fluff, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 single-parameter inspect tool, the description is minimally complete for the purpose, but it lacks detail on what 'detailed information' includes, especially since no output schema is provided. The absence of any return or behavior details leaves a gap, though the tool's simplicity and sufficient schema keep it at an adequate level.

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 fully describes the sole parameter 'containerId' as 'Container ID or name,' providing 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning to the parameter, but the schema is sufficient on its own, aligning with the baseline score of 3 for high 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 clearly states 'Display detailed information about a WSL container,' which is a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from mutating container tools like container_start or container_remove, but it does not explicitly distinguish from list_containers, which also displays container 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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools such as list_containers or container_logs, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the generic phrasing.

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