docker_exec_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the optional blocking behavior ('Optionally wait until it exits'), which is useful. However, it doesn't state whether the result is consumed/destroyed, whether repeated calls are safe, or any error conditions. Since the tool name implies a read-only check, the absence of explicit non-destructive disclosure is a gap.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The key information is front-loaded: what the tool does, the context, and the optional behavior. Every word adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately captures the core purpose and blocking behavior. It could be more specific about the return format (e.g., what 'status and output' means structurally), but the name and context make the intent clear enough. A 4 reflects that it's mostly complete but not exhaustive.

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 full descriptions for all three parameters (job_id, wait, timeout_ms), including default values and ranges. The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already contains, so it earns the baseline score.

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 verb 'check' and the resource: the status and output of a background job started with docker_exec background=true. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docker_exec (which starts jobs) and docker_exec_kill (which kills them).

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 explicitly specifies the prerequisite: the job must have been started with docker_exec background=true. It implies this tool is for polling/retrieving results, and the optional wait behavior gives context on when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so a small deduction.

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