docker_volumes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, whether the host is local or remote, or behavior when no daemon is reachable.

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?

It is a single front-loaded fragment with zero waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficient completeness. The returned-fields clause is the only substantive content.

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 for a simple list tool the bar is low. Still, the undocumented 'host' parameter and the absence of annotations leave a real gap an agent would want closed before invoking it.

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% and the sole parameter 'host' (defaulting to empty string) is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no indication of what 'host' selects or what an empty value means, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('List volumes') and even names the returned fields (name, driver), which is enough to distinguish it from docker_images and docker_networks. It doesn't explicitly call out sibling relationships, but the resource noun does the differentiating work.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives (e.g., docker_inspect for volume detail or docker_prune for removal). The agent must infer from the name alone that this is a read-only enumeration.

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