Container List Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about behavior: no mention of pagination via limit, no note that non-running containers are hidden by default, and no statement about read-only semantics (only weakly implied by "List"). For a zero-annotation tool this is a substantial gap.

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 single sentence is maximally short and front-loaded, with nothing wasted, which is structurally sound. However, at two words it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, so it cannot score higher despite the efficient form.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and parameter coverage is complete in the schema. What remains missing is any context about the default running-only scope and filtering behavior, which matters for correct invocation of a container listing tool with 29 siblings.

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%, so limit, filters, and all_containers are fully documented in the schema and the description need not repeat them. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome when 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?

"List containers" restates the tool name (container_list_tool) and title almost verbatim, so it adds no distinguishing information beyond the name itself. The verb+resource pair is present, but there is no differentiation from the many sibling list tools (pod_list_tool, network_list_tool, volume_list_tool, image_list_tool).

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling list tools, nor any prerequisite information. The default-only-running behavior exists but appears only in the schema, not the description, so an agent gets no usage context from the description.

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