get_docker_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool returns stats, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, side effects, or dependencies (e.g., Docker daemon running). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently.

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 covers the tool's purpose and basic data categories (CPU, memory, network per container). However, given no output schema, it lacks details on return structure (e.g., list, object, per-container keys). It also omits limitations or conditions. Adequate for a simple tool but not thoroughly 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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so no additional parameter documentation is needed. The description does not need to explain parameters as there are none. Baseline score of 4 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 returns Docker container statistics (CPU, memory, network) for running containers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_docker_events (events), get_service_stats (service-level), and get_system_stats (system-level).

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 usage for retrieving real-time container resource stats, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Guidance is only implied through the description of what it does.

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