container_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions a basic read-only snapshot for running containers. It does not mention that the 'all' flag can include non-running containers, that a specific container can be targeted via containerId, or any details about output format or error behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose with no wasted words. It is model of 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?

Given 4 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention the ability to show all containers or target a specific container, and does not clarify the distinction from sibling tools such as container_inspect, leaving the agent without enough context for correct invocation.

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 provides 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already explains each parameter clearly.

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 displays resource usage snapshots for WSL containers, with a specific verb ('Display') and resource ('resource usage snapshot'). However, the qualifier 'running' is slightly misleading because the 'all' parameter can show containers regardless of status, so the scope is not fully accurate.

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 phrase 'resource usage snapshot' implies the tool is for monitoring container performance, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it over sibling tools like list_containers or container_inspect. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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