local_ydb_inventory

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description richly explains behavior: success returns ok=true with Docker state; failures return ok=false with a reason and omit arrays so failure is not mistaken for an empty host; SSH/probe failures use docker-inventory-failed with conservative availability flags. This provides deep insight into edge cases and error semantics.

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 sentences long with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose ('Read-only Docker inventory') and the second adds essential behavioral detail. Every clause conveys meaningful information without 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully covers invocation context: what is returned on success, what happens on failure, and special handling for SSH/probe failures. For a read-only tool with straightforward parameters, this is complete and self-sufficient, leaving no major ambiguity for an agent deciding to call it.

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 covers both parameters (profile and configPath) with complete descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning; it focuses on behavior. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, the description adds no extra value, landing at the baseline of 3.

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 begins with 'Read-only Docker inventory for a local-ydb target profile', which uses a specific verb (inventory) and resource (Docker containers/volumes) with clear scope (local-ydb profile). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by enumerating exactly what is returned (Docker CLI/daemon state, containers, volumes, inspect data) rather than overlapping with status or check tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or list exclusions. It is implied through the 'Read-only Docker inventory' phrasing and the detail about returning Docker state, but there is no direct comparison to siblings like local_ydb_database_status or local_ydb_healthcheck. This is adequate context but not explicit guidance.

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