Inspect a container

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, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: state includes an exit code, and env variables are returned as names only, never values, because they may hold secrets. That security-relevant caveat is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry. It does not say what happens when the container does not exist, leaving a small gap.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource, packing only meaningful field details plus one high-value parenthetical about secret env values. No filler, though the dense comma-list is slightly list-like rather than prose.

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 an output schema present, describing return fields is not strictly required, yet the description is complete enough for an agent to know exactly what calling this returns and the read-only nature of the call. The only missing piece is failure behavior for an unknown container, which is minor for a read-only inspect tool.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('name or id, as its list gives it'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage 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?

The description names the target resource ('a container') and enumerates exactly what information is retrieved (image, command, state, ports, mounts, networks, labels, env var names), which clearly separates it from siblings like inspect_image, inspect_network, and inspect_volume. The verb is only implied by the tool name ('inspect') rather than stated, so it falls just short of a fully self-contained statement of action.

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 guidance on when to use this versus list_containers, container_logs, or any other sibling; the agent must infer that this is the deep-detail lookup. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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