Containers' resource usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful traits: it is a single snapshot rather than a stream, and stopped containers return zeros rather than erroring — both are behaviors an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 dense sentences with the snapshot-vs-stream caveat and output fields front-loaded, then scope and use case, then the sibling pointer. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 a one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers scope, snapshot semantics, stopped-container behavior, and routing. Return-value structure is left to the output schema, which is appropriate.

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%, so the single 'containers' parameter is already documented. The description still adds meaning the schema does not: the default is all running containers, and naming a stopped container yields zeros rather than an omission or failure, clarifying the semantics of the filter.

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 resource and action — a live resource-usage snapshot for containers — and enumerates the metrics returned (CPU, memory, network, disk I/O, processes). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling container_processes ('shows what runs inside one'), so an agent can separate the two without opening schemas.

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 concrete use cases ('answer why the computer is slow or which container uses the most') and points to container_processes for a different need. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g., historical trends or logs), so it stops short of full routing coverage.

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