zima_docker_ps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully implies a read-only listing and scopes results to running containers only (stopped/exited ones are excluded), but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or output format beyond two field names.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, scope, and return fields; every word earns its place and there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what comes back, and 'status and image' does so at a basic level. For a zero-parameter read-only listing this is nearly sufficient, though the exact shape/ordering of the listing is unstated.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List running Docker containers') and clarifies the returned fields ('status and image'), which distinguishes it from log- or control-oriented siblings like zima_container_logs and zima_restart_container. It does not explicitly differentiate from zima_docker_stats, which likely overlaps in scope, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer zima_docker_stats or zima_top instead, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer the tool's place in the sibling set on its own.

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