VPS_getProjectContainersV1

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. It mentions the tool returns detailed information (status, port mappings, runtime configuration), which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (though unlikely for a read operation), error scenarios, or performance implications. The description is adequate but lacks depth for a higher score.

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 extremely concise: two sentences (three lines) that front-load the main purpose and then add return details and a usage hint. Every sentence is meaningful and adds value. There is no fluff or unnecessary repetition.

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?

For a read operation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is returned (status, port mappings, configuration) and the use case (monitoring). It does not mention pagination or filtering, but 'all containers' implies completeness. The tool is simple enough that this description is nearly complete, earning a 4.

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 100% coverage, with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context by explaining the project is a Docker Compose project on a VM, which reinforces the parameter meanings. However, it does not provide additional details beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 retrieves a list of all containers for a specific Docker Compose project. It specifies the resource (containers of a project) and the action (retrieves). The verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'containers' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like VPS_getProjectListV1 (which lists projects) by focusing on container-level information.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use this to monitor the health and state of all services within your Docker Compose project.' It implies the tool is for monitoring, distinguishing it from other project-related tools like VPS_getProjectLogsV1 (logs) or VPS_getProjectContentsV1 (other contents). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, so it's not a perfect 5.

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