docker_container_stats

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 traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it's read-only or has side effects, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., real-time vs. snapshot). This is a significant gap for a stats tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (stats retrieval with no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral context, which are crucial for an agent to use it correctly. This falls short of what's needed for adequate contextual understanding.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'container' well-documented in the schema as 'Container name or ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('CPU/memory/network stats for a container'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'docker_container_logs' or 'proxmox_vm_status', which might also provide performance metrics in different contexts, preventing 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., container must be running), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'docker_list_containers' for general info or 'system_info' for broader stats, leaving usage context implied at best.

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