docker_run

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains timing parameters and timeout handling, including the ability to run in background with a durable job_id. However, it omits other important behaviors such as image pulling, container lifecycle, or default of detach=true. Partial transparency is achieved.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loads the tool name, followed by timing advice. While concise, it is poorly structured as it starts with a redundant prefix and jumps into details without establishing context. Every sentence earns its place, but the overall structure could be improved.

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 the tool's complexity (14 parameters, output schema) and zero description coverage in the schema, the description is severely incomplete. It covers only a subset of parameters and does not explain the core function, return value, or side effects. Essential context for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only describes the five timing parameters (expected_runtime_seconds, timeout_seconds, check_after_seconds, poll_interval_seconds, on_timeout) but ignores the other nine parameters (e.g., env, ports, command, volumes). This leaves most parameters unexplained.

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 does not explicitly state that the tool runs a Docker container. It begins with 'Kali Agent MCP tool: docker_run', which is a tautology, and then focuses on execution timing without defining the core action. Given sibling tools like docker_build, docker_exec, and docker_compose, the purpose is vague and relies on the tool name for inference.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use docker_run versus alternatives such as docker_exec or docker_compose. The description only advises on choosing timing parameters and on_timeout behavior, which is helpful but does not address selection relative to sibling tools.

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