exec_in_container

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: runs on the first container or specified containerId, returns output, and requires explicit confirmation for destructive commands. It also notes that it executes arbitrary commands, making the risk clear.

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 concise (3-4 sentences), front-loaded with the primary action and use cases, uses an emoji for emphasis on the warning, and is well-structured.

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 5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, usage context, and safety warnings. It is fully informative for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: provides command examples (ls, cat, env), explains default behavior for containerId, and clarifies the confirm field's purpose and exact required value.

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's purpose: execute a command inside a container and return stdout/stderr. It gives specific use cases (debugging, inspecting files, checking variables, etc.) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by its unique action.

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 explicitly says when to use: for runtime debugging tasks like inspecting files, checking variables, testing connectivity, and running migrations. It also warns when not to use: destructive commands require a confirmation flag. No direct alternative is needed among siblings.

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