A container's processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the runtime-state requirement, which is the main failure mode. It does not mention what happens on a stopped container beyond implying failure.

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?

Two short sentences: the first front-loads what is returned and its Docker analogue, the second states the precondition. No wasted text.

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?

With a full output schema, one well-documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description only needed to add the precondition — which it does. It could go one step further by disambiguating from container_stats/container_logs.

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 100% and the single 'container' parameter is already documented as name-or-id with a pattern. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('the processes running inside a container') and anchors it to a known primitive ('docker top'), plus enumerates the returned fields so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. That scope separates it from container_stats (resource usage), container_logs (stdout/stderr) and exec_in_container (new process).

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 container must be running' gives an explicit precondition for a successful call. It stops short of naming alternatives such as container_stats or container_logs for adjacent needs, so the agent must infer which sibling to pick.

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