docker_read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains offset/limit semantics (1-based, limit=0 unlimited) and the default first-200-lines behavior, providing useful operational details beyond the schema. It does not cover error cases or return format, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every clause is informative. The line-range explanation and default are compact and precise, with no redundant filler 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 simple read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what it reads, line-range selection, and defaults. It does not explicitly state the return value (file contents) but that is implied. Missing error conditions are a minor gap, but the description 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter docs, so the baseline is 3. The description restates offset/limit semantics and the default, adding no new information beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify parameter interactions beyond the line-range concept.

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 begins with 'Read a UTF-8 text file from a Docker container,' a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like docker_read_image (reads images) and docker_list_dir (lists directories), making the tool's scope 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?

The description implies usage for reading text files with line-based access and highlights the default limit of 200 lines, giving practical context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for binary files), though sibling names like docker_read_image provide implicit boundaries.

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