List containers

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. The description adds the default scope (includes stopped containers unless running=true), which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about ordering, size limits, or result shape beyond the field list.

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, front-loaded with the verb+resource and scope, then the interop note. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and the description still covers scope, the parameter's default behavior, and cross-tool usage. Only minor gaps remain (ordering, whether results are paginated), which are unlikely to block correct invocation.

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 parameter's description ('Only the running ones') is already documented. The description adds value by clarifying the default when the parameter is omitted ('all unless running is true'), which the schema does not state.

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 and resource ('List Docker containers') plus the exact scope ('running or not') and the fields returned (id, name, image, state, status, ports). An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling detail tools like inspect_container or container_logs.

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?

Explains the selection semantics ('all unless running is true') and, importantly, tells the agent that the names/ids returned are the inputs the other container tools expect, which guides chaining. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over inspect_container or list_labs, so no full 5.

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