Generate a Dockerfile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that it writes a file, but omits important behavioral details such as whether it overwrites existing files, permissions required, error conditions, or side effects. This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 efficient sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage context. No unnecessary words, front-loaded and clear.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and high-level workflow. However, it lacks behavioral details like overwrite behavior, idempotency, or success/failure indicators, making it minimally complete for an agent.

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 already describes both parameters (path and stack) at 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter information. The description mentions 'production multi-stage' but that describes the output, not the parameters. 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 it writes a production multi-stage Dockerfile into a project, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling docker_* (management) and scaffold_* (project generation) tools by explicitly pairing with docker_* and coolify_* for build/deploy.

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 tells when to use this tool (to generate a Dockerfile for nextjs/node/go stacks) and pairs it with docker_* and coolify_* tools, implying a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with scaffold tools that might also generate Dockerfiles.

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