docker_resource

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, so the description adds meaningful extra context: an empty list means the query ran and found nothing rather than never having been executed. It also clarifies the semantic difference between listing resources and measuring disk usage.

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?

Three tightly written sentences convey purpose, scope, empty-list semantics, and the sibling alternative with no wasted words. The core distinction is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With a full input schema, a readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema present, the description covers the key behavioral nuance and the main alternative tool. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both the action enum and profile parameter. The description adds little beyond the schema for parameters, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb and resource for each action: images, volumes, and networks list what the host holds, while disk measures usage. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the docker_container sibling by noting that current running-container consumption belongs to docker_container with stats.

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 gives clear context on what the tool is for and explicitly points to docker_container as the right tool for live container consumption. It does not enumerate every sibling alternative, but the main decision boundary is stated clearly.

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