Dpanel Network Container List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation, no pagination or filtering behavior, no error conditions. It is a plain read implied by 'list', but the disclosure is minimal.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, so it is only moderately sized for the job.

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. Still, with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves the network scoping and the meaning of 'name' ambiguous, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0% for the single required 'name' parameter, so the description must compensate. It only hints that 'name' refers to the network ('on the network'), giving marginal meaning; it never states the expected format (ID vs name) or whether it is the network or container identifier.

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 verb-ish action (list) and resource (containers on a network), so the basic purpose is inferable. However, it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling list tools, especially dpanel_container_list, so an agent cannot tell which list to pick from the description alone.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus dpanel_container_list or dpanel_network_detail. The only usage signal is the implicit 'network' scoping, which the agent must infer from the name.

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