Dpanel Container Detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions, whether the call is a safe read, failure behavior for unknown IDs, or rate limits. The only behavioral hint is implicit in the word 'detail' (a non-mutating lookup).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the parameter clarification. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is covered. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the definition is minimally sufficient rather than complete for a tool embedded in a large container tool family.

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 description coverage is 0% (the schema only declares md5 as a bare string), so the description is the sole source of semantics. It usefully explains that md5 is the container ID and that either the full ID or a prefix is accepted, which is real information beyond the schema.

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 states a clear resource (container) and operation (fetch details), so an agent can tell this is a read of a single container. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like dpanel_container_stat, dpanel_container_status, or dpanel_container_process, so the reader must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives. The reader is left to infer that this is the lookup tool for a single container, but no condition or exclusion routes the agent between this and the many other container_* siblings.

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