container_health_status

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

The description discloses the tool's behavior: it returns a JSON with specified fields for all running containers. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., no containers running, Docker daemon connectivity) and any side effects. The behavior is partially transparent but not exhaustive.

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?

The description is two sentences, concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose and immediately details the output. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what it does and what it returns. It is complete enough for most use cases, though adding a note about potential errors would increase completeness.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% schema description coverage. According to guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. No additional meaning needs to be added beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool checks health status, uptime, and restart count for all running Docker containers. It specifies the output fields (name, state, health probe status, restart count) and scope ('all running Docker containers'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_health' which likely targets a single container.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_health', 'container_stats', or 'inspect_container'. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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