portainer_docker_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes what the tool does but does not state that it is a read-only, idempotent operation or mention any side effects, safety, or authentication requirements.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with bulleted args. The purpose is front-loaded, and every word adds value. No unnecessary details.

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 (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the purpose and parameter. It could mention error conditions or endpoint validation, but for minimal context it is 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 description adds meaning to the endpoint_id parameter by explaining it is a target ID and defaults to omitted, which is not present in the schema (0% coverage). This provides useful guidance beyond the raw 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 'Get Docker system information for an endpoint' with examples (OS, CPU, memory, containers count), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on containers, images, networks, etc.

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 when to use (when system-level info is needed) and explains the endpoint_id parameter usage, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives like portainer_endpoint_inspect for endpoint metadata.

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