docker_grep

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: recursive search, restriction to text files, ripgrep-to-grep fallback, and the output format. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but these are likely moot for a search operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no wasted words or 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 search tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, engine fallback, and output format. It omits edge cases like no-match behavior or error handling, but these are not essential for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 89%, and all important parameters have their own descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, but none are needed 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 names a specific verb ('search') and resource ('text files recursively inside a Docker container'), and adds distinguishing details ('with ripgrep, falling back to grep' and 'file:line:match' output) that set it apart from sibling tools like docker_read_file and docker_exec.

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 makes clear this is for searching file contents inside a container, providing unambiguous context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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