docker_interactive_exec

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden and does an excellent job: it discloses the TTY allocation, the wait-for-quiet behavior, session_id return, automatic session closure when the command finishes, and the 10-minute idle expiry. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 concise yet information-dense, with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and then logically explains the async behavior, session lifecycle, and related tools, all in four sentences.

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?

Despite moderate complexity, the description fully covers the usage flow, session management, and timeout behavior. It names sibling tools for continuation and cleanup, making it self-contained for an agent to decide next steps. No output schema exists, but the description explains what is returned (output so far plus session_id).

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 67% (command lacks a description). The description adds meaning by explaining the quiet period (likely waiting for input) which clarifies quiet_ms, and the overall interactive session context makes command and container self-evident. It does not fully explain every parameter, but compensates well for the gap.

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 tool starts a command inside a Docker container with a TTY allocated for interactive programs. It names specific use cases (sudo password, y/N confirmations, REPLs) and distinguishes itself from other siblings like docker_exec by emphasizing the TTY and interactive nature.

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 says when to use this tool (for programs that prompt for input) and provides a clear workflow: if the process exits cleanly, no further action; otherwise use docker_interactive_input to reply or poll and docker_interactive_close to finish. It also mentions idle session expiry, giving practical usage context.

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