get_docker_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: real-time capture, ~8s window, event types, limitation of no historical data, and the possibility of empty results. This is comprehensive for a read-only event monitoring 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?

The description is concise with three sentences, efficiently communicating the purpose, use case, and limitations. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses bullet-like structure for event types.

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?

The description explains the tool's behavior but does not detail the return format of events (e.g., event structure). Given no output schema, additional completeness about response format would improve it. However, for a simple tool, it is minimally adequate.

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% for the single optional 'limit' parameter, which is already described in the schema. The description adds no additional information about the parameter, so a baseline score of 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 captures Docker events in real-time during a short window (~8s), listing specific event types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_docker_stats or get_service_logs by focusing on events for investigating restarts and failures.

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 advises using the tool to investigate restarts and failures and explicitly warns that it only shows events during capture (no history) and may return empty if the server is idle. It does not name alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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