docker_ps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does helpfully disclose the returned fields and that the default (all=true) already includes stopped containers, which is a non-obvious behavior. It says nothing about permissions, host scoping, or ordering/pagination of results.

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 lines, front-loaded with purpose and returned fields, followed by the two filtering behaviors. No filler; every sentence adds information.

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 in depth, and the description is adequate for a simple read-only listing. The undocumented 'host' parameter and absence of any note on scope or default host selection leave a meaningful hole.

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 is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains two of three params meaningfully — notably clarifying that all=true is the default and includes stopped containers — but the 'host' parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, a real gap for a Docker tool that may target remote hosts.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("List containers") and enumerates the fields returned, which clearly separates it from docker_images, docker_networks, and docker_volumes. It never explicitly names those siblings, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Guidance is limited to parameter behavior (all=true includes stopped containers, name_contains filters by name) rather than when to pick this over docker_inspect or docker_stats. The intended use case of listing/overview is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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