resource_alert_check

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It ambiguously states 'alert when containers exceed thresholds' without clarifying if it performs a one-time check or sets up persistent monitoring. No mention of required container state, side effects, or response format beyond 'violations'.

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 short sentences, front-loading the core action. It is concise with no redundancy, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing usage context) could improve clarity.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and return statement but lacks details on which containers are checked, the structure of violations, and whether the check is continuous or one-time. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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% with clear parameter descriptions (cpu_percent, memory_percent, restart_count) and defaults. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating the threshold types, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 alerts on Docker container resource thresholds (CPU%, memory%, restart count) and returns violations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like container_resource_usage or check_health, which report current usage or health status without threshold-based alerting.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools (e.g., container_resource_usage for real-time metrics, check_health for health checks). Lacks prerequisites, context, or when-not-to-use instructions.

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