docker_list_dir

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context by mentioning 'file metadata in ls -lAh style', giving the agent a clear idea of the output format. It doesn't cover error cases or container state, but for a read-only listing operation this is reasonably sufficient.

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?

A single sentence conveys the entire purpose and output format without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description explains what the output looks like. It doesn't mention potential errors or require the container to be running, but that is somewhat implicit. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description doesn't add substantial parameter details beyond the schema, but the schema itself fully documents both parameters (container and path) with meaningful descriptions. This matches the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 action ('List a directory') and the resource ('inside a Docker container'), with a specific style qualifier ('ls -lAh style'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docker_read_file (reading files) and docker_grep (searching content).

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 implies when to use this tool: whenever you need to inspect directory contents and metadata inside a Docker container. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a simple listing tool.

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