docker_interactive_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ability to omit input to poll, and states the return value (newly produced output and status). It doesn't detail error conditions or blocking behavior, but covers the core interaction semantics well.

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 one sentence with a clear action and examples, followed by a crisp result statement. No redundant wording, 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main behaviors (send vs poll) and mentions the return type. It omits details on quiet_ms and session_id semantics, but it's sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand the workflow.

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 50% (input and newline described). The description enriches input by giving usage examples, but quiet_ms and session_id are left undefined. It partially compensates for the uncovered parameters but not fully.

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's purpose: sending input to a running docker_interactive_exec session or polling for output. The examples (sudo password, y/N prompt) and reference to the sibling tool docker_interactive_exec make its distinct role unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly specifies the context (running docker_interactive_exec session) and gives practical examples, but doesn't mention when to use alternatives like docker_exec_result or docker_ping. The 'just poll for more output' guidance adds useful usage nuance.

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