pier_list_containers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently communicates a read-only listing operation and clarifies that the result includes both Pier-managed and standalone containers, so an agent can infer there are no destructive side effects. It does not mention access requirements, but those are not material for a zero-parameter list.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope without any filler. It earns its place by distinguishing the container scope from sibling application-focused tools.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description is essentially complete: it names the resource, the scope, and the inclusion criteria. It stops slightly short of describing the output format, but that omission is minor for such a straightforward list operation.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing the schema must document.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('all Docker containers on the server'), and explicitly scopes the result to include both Pier-managed and standalone containers. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling pier_list_apps, which targets applications rather than containers.

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 intended use is implied: use this when you need an inventory of Docker containers on the server. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling to prefer (e.g., pier_list_apps when only Pier applications are relevant).

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