List Docker containers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds field-level transparency by stating exactly what is included and omitted, giving a clear expectation of the response content beyond what annotations provide.

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, tightly packed with relevant information. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and key data categories; the second sentence crisply lists what is omitted. No wasted words or duplication of schema/annotation data.

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?

The tool has low complexity (one optional parameter, safe read operation) and rich annotations. The description adequately covers the return scope and omissions. It does not mention default behavior when environment_id is omitted or pagination, but these are minor gaps for a simple list tool.

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 coverage for parameters is 100% and the only parameter, environment_id, is already described in the schema as 'Optional Dockhand environment ID from list_environments.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' with resource 'containers' and clearly enumerates the included fields (identity, image, runtime health, ports, metrics, network membership) and excluded fields (secrets, labels, mounts, logs, commands). This scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_container_summary and list_networks.

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 does not mention any when-not conditions, such as needing secrets/labels/mounts, nor does it point to get_container_summary or list_networks for those cases.

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