container_resource_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It states the tool 'monitors' and 'returns' data, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose any potential performance impact, authorization requirements, or behavior beyond the basic functionality. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Monitor CPU, memory, and network I/O...') and includes key details (all containers, sorted, percentages). Every phrase is necessary and concise.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and output. It could mention that results are for all running containers only and might include a note on data freshness, but it is largely complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the one optional parameter (sort_by) with enum and default. The description adds no new information beyond what is in the schema. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 it monitors CPU, memory, and network I/O across all running containers and returns sorted metrics with percentages. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like container_stats (per-container) and monitor_dashboard (likely a dashboard) by specifying 'across all running Docker containers'.

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?

The description implies usage for overall resource monitoring but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like container_stats or monitor_dashboard. No when-not-to-use or comparison is provided, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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