get_docker_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description indicates the tool is a read operation (returns state data) with no destructive effects. It does not mention any authentication or permission requirements, nor does it describe the output format or any side effects. For a simple stateless read tool with zero parameters, the basic transparency is adequate but minimal; an agent would benefit from knowing if a response structure is guaranteed or if the tool might fail under certain conditions.

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 very concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and exactly what is returned (actual vs desired replicas). The second sentence gives a use case and sibling direction. Every sentence is meaningful and adds value. No wasted words.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (what it returns) and a use case. It also links to the relevant sibling for deeper stats. However, it does not explain the return format (e.g., structure of the response), which could be important for an agent to parse the output. Since there is no output schema, the description could have included a brief note on the return structure (e.g., a list of objects with service name and replica counts). Still, the overall completeness is high for a simple tool.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, meaning an empty object. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none. However, it implicitly clarifies that no input is needed, which is helpful. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, which compensates for the lack of parameters.

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 the state of Docker tasks for each service, comparing actual vs desired replicas. It uses a specific verb ('Retorna' - returns) and resource ('estado das tasks Docker de cada serviço'). While it distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_service_stats' by mentioning that sibling is for CPU/memory, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_system_stats' or 'get_storage_stats' among the siblings, but the core purpose is well-defined.

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 states when to use the tool: 'para ver rapidamente o que está no ar, escalado ou caído' (to quickly see what is up, scaled, or down). It also provides an alternative: 'Para CPU/memória de um serviço use get_service_stats.' This gives clear context for selecting this tool versus a related sibling. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or any prerequisites, but it is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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