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 but offers minimal information. 'Manage Docker containers' implies both read and write operations, but doesn't specify which actions are destructive (remove, stop), which require elevated privileges, what happens with force operations, or any rate limits. The description doesn't mention error conditions, output formats, or side effects. For a tool with potentially destructive actions and 8 parameters, this is inadequate behavioral 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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes representative examples of actions. However, it could be more structured by explicitly grouping actions (read vs. write operations) or mentioning the primary use case first. The brevity is appropriate but borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple potentially destructive actions, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address safety considerations, permission requirements, common use cases, or expected outputs. The agent must rely entirely on the schema for parameter details without contextual guidance about which combinations make sense or what results to expect. Given the complexity and lack of supporting structured data, the description should provide more operational context.

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 has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the high-level action list. While the description implies the tool handles multiple operations, it doesn't explain parameter dependencies (e.g., 'container' is required for most actions except 'list', 'command' only for 'exec', etc.). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 as 'Manage Docker containers' with specific verbs (list, start, stop, remove, etc.), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling Docker tools like docker_build, docker_images, docker_networks, and docker_volumes by focusing specifically on container operations rather than images, networks, or volumes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from docker_run (which creates/launches containers) or docker_compose (which manages multi-container applications).

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 when to choose docker_containers over docker_run for starting containers, docker_compose for multi-container management, or docker_system for system-level operations. There are no prerequisites, context requirements, or exclusion criteria provided, leaving the agent to infer usage patterns from the action list alone.

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