Code MCP Server

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 states what the tool does but lacks details on how it works—e.g., whether it checks installation via command-line, returns a boolean or detailed status, has side effects, or handles errors. For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It avoids redundancy and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and target.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on behavior, output format, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the agent is left guessing about the result structure and operational details.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. No additional parameter semantics are required or provided.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Docker'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like docker_build or docker_run by focusing on availability checking rather than execution or management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all Docker-related siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., before running Docker commands), exclusions (e.g., if Docker is already confirmed available), or related tools like docker_system or docker_containers. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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