inspect_container

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'get detailed info', which implies a read operation, but doesn't mention potential errors, permissions, or whether the container must be running. There is no disclosure of any side effects or limitations.

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, concise sentence with no redundant modifiers or filler. It is appropriately short and front-loaded, stating the core purpose without unnecessary 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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain what 'detailed info' includes, how the response is structured, or whether it includes runtime status, configuration, network settings, etc. The tool appears relatively simple with two well-documented parameters, but the lack of context for the output makes it incomplete for an agent deciding whether this tool fits the task.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (containerId and environmentId) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because parameter semantics are fully covered structurally.

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 identifies the action (get) and resource (container), and adds 'detailed info' to hint at the depth of data. It distinguishes somewhat from sibling list_containers and get_container_logs, but doesn't enumerate exactly what information is returned.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_containers or inspect_stack. It doesn't state any prerequisites, complementary tools, or scenarios where this is the preferred choice.

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