sysknife_get_container_info

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description only repeats 'read-only' and adds 'Podman container'; it says nothing about return contents, permission requirements, or failure behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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?

It is a compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The trailing 'params: username*, name*' notation is cryptic but does not bloat the description.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never explains what inspect returns. Combined with the empty input schema and the unsupported parameter claims, an agent lacks enough information to invoke this correctly.

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 claims required parameters 'username*' and 'name*', but the input schema defines no properties at all. That is a significant mismatch: the description invents parameter expectations that the schema does not support, and it gives no meaning or format for either value.

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, 'inspect', and resource, 'Podman container', so an agent can tell this is a single-container inspection tool rather than the sibling list operation. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sysknife_list_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?

Usage is implied: use this to inspect a specific Podman container. However, it never says when to choose this over sysknife_list_containers, how to discover a container name, or what prerequisites are needed.

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