Get Docker Containers

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral details. However, it only repeats the title and does not disclose output format, pagination, filtering, or any side effects. It adds no behavioral context beyond what the name already implies.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It is appropriately terse for a simple read operation, and the essential information is front-loaded.

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 the simple nature and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any indication of return values or behavior for edge cases (e.g., empty project, invalid VM). With no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context about expected results would improve completeness.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions ('Virtual machine ID', 'Project name'), covering 100% of the schema. The description adds no extra meaning, but the schema already provides sufficient clarity for both parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get containers of a Docker project' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a read operation for container lists. It differentiates from sibling tools like vps_docker_get and vps_docker_logs by explicitly mentioning containers within a project.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling docker tools (vps_docker_list, vps_docker_get, vps_docker_logs), and the description does not explain the distinction or when this tool should be preferred over them. It relies solely on the tool name.

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