docker_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value: secret environment variable values are redacted, and volume inspection surfaces driver and options such as the NFS address. It omits other behavioral facts an agent needs, such as whether this is strictly read-only, what happens for a missing name, and how the `host` parameter changes behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource scope, and each sentence adds something (scope, volume-specific output, redaction). The dangling '(kind)' reference in the first sentence is awkwardly placed and slightly interrupts the opening.

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 needn't be described, and the redaction note covers a key safety concern. However, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the unexplained `host` parameter leaves a meaningful hole an agent cannot resolve from structured fields.

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. It does clarify `kind` by listing the accepted values (container, volume, network, image), which the schema leaves as an unconstrained string, but `host` is never explained and `name` semantics are only implied.

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 (Show details) and enumerates the four resource types it covers, with the `kind` parameter naming the selector. The singular-resource scope implicitly separates it from list siblings like docker_ps and docker_images, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 never says when to use this versus docker_ps, docker_volumes, docker_networks, or docker_images, nor does it establish the typical list-then-inspect workflow. Usage is only inferable from the word 'details'.

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