get_docker_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the exact returned fields and, importantly, that it returns an actionable error if Docker is not installed or the daemon is not running. This goes beyond the structured annotations and provides practical expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core output, the second adds the count and error handling. There is no wasted text.

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?

Given no parameters, a simple read-only output, and the presence of rich annotations, the description is complete. It states exactly what is returned and how failures are reported. No output schema exists, but the description adequately covers the return content, so no further detail is necessary.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema confirms no parameters are required. No further parameter-specific detail is expected, so the score aligns with the baseline.

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 returns all running Docker containers with specified fields (CPU%, memory usage, image, status, ports) and total container count. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling system metrics tools like get_cpu_usage or get_ram_usage, which cover host-level resources rather than Docker-specific data.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. However, the specific reference to Docker containers and the inclusion of an error for Docker-specific issues implies the intended use case. No explicit guidance on alternatives is provided, so it earns only the implied-usage score.

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