Docker's information

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data rather than prose. The description adds the useful framing that this is a non-destructive health probe, but no other behavioral traits (latency, whether it errors when the daemon is down, effect of a stopped engine) are disclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the payload list and closing with the intended use case. The enumerated list is dense but every item is a distinct return field, so nothing reads as filler.

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 need not be explained, and with zero parameters and read-only annotations the description carries little additional burden. The only real gap is not resolving the relationship to `server_info`.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. No parameter semantics are missing.

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 enumerates exactly what information the tool returns: Docker version, engine OS/architecture, CPU and memory, and running/stopped container and image counts. That is far more specific than the title "Docker's information." It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling `server_info`, which a reader could reasonably confuse it with.

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?

"A first call to check Docker is up" gives a clear usage context (health/connectivity check before other operations). It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming `server_info`/`check_requirements` as the alternative for related questions.

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