sysknife_list_containers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered upstream and 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. What the description does add beyond annotations is that the listing is scoped per-user, but it says nothing about what happens if the user has no containers, whether the user must exist, or what the result looks like.

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 short clauses, with the action name and the core purpose front-loaded ahead of the parameter note. The `param: username*` fragment is terse to the point of terseness, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With annotations present and no output schema, the safety and return-shape burden is partly lifted, and the parameter hint covers the biggest hole in the empty schema. Still, for a tool whose schema fails to declare its own parameter, the description should say more about username format and scope (rootless vs root containers) than three trailing words.

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 input schema declares no properties at all (additionalProperties: true), so without the description an agent would have no idea what to send. The description compensates by flagging `username` as the (required, per the asterisk) input. It still doesn't explain the expected form of the username or whether it must be the invoking user, which keeps it below 5.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (Podman containers) with a scope qualifier (for a user), and the word 'Podman' implicitly distinguishes it from the container-adjacent siblings like sysknife_distrobox_list, sysknife_list_toolboxes and sysknife_get_container_info. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but an agent can map the resource correctly.

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?

'Read-only' hints at the safe-inspection context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer sysknife_get_container_info (detail) over this (enumeration), and no exclusions. The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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