docker_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the confirm=true requirement and the two creation modes, but it does not discuss permissions, failure behavior, idempotency, or what happens if the named resource already exists.

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 front-loaded with the core action and confirm requirement, then gives compact kind-specific parameter guidance. The formatting is slightly uneven, but most content is useful and not repetitive.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the critical network/volume distinction and most creation parameters. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, though the missing host/name details and lack of failure semantics leave some gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain many important parameters: kind, driver, subnet, gateway, ip_range, parent, internal, and options with an NFS example. It still leaves host and name largely unexplained, and confirm is only partially covered.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create a network or volume, and it explicitly splits behavior by kind. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like docker_run, docker_networks, and docker_volumes without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear context for use by requiring confirm=true and explaining that kind must be network or volume. It also explains kind-specific fields, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as listing existing networks/volumes or removing them.

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