Docker inspect

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already known. The description adds that the tool returns state, image, ports, and mounts, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if the container does not exist) or that the output is detailed JSON, but the output schema likely covers the format. With annotations, the description adds moderate value.

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 that front-loads the key information types. There is no waste or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values do not need to be explained. The description gives a high-level summary of what is inspected. However, it does not mention that this is for a single container or that it provides low-level configuration details, which could help an agent decide when to use it. Overall, it is minimally adequate given the output schema and annotations.

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 a single required parameter 'container' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the expected format (ID or name), nor does it clarify that this is the container to inspect. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states the tool inspects a container and lists the categories of information returned (state, image, ports, mounts). This is clear and specific, though it could explicitly say 'inspect' rather than relying on the name. It distinguishes from siblings like docker_ps (list) and docker_logs (logs) by indicating detailed info, but does not name alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus docker_ps, docker_logs, or other container tools. The description does not state when inspection is appropriate or provide exclusions. The use case is only implied by the name and description.

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