List Unraid Docker containers

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the specific container details it returns, especially 'port conflicts,' which is not obvious from the tool name or schema. It could mention output shape or whether all containers are included, but the added detail is meaningful.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently enumerates the returned fields. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete: it tells the agent exactly what data will be retrieved. No output schema is provided, but the listed result fields give sufficient expectation of the return value.

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 schema trivially documents all inputs. With schema description coverage at 100%, the description correctly focuses on result contents rather than parameters, which is appropriate for a parameter-less read operation.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('Docker containers'), and enumerates the returned aspects: state, image, ports, autostart, resource sizes, and port conflicts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unraid_get_docker_logs or unraid_v4371_query_docker_container, which target different data or a single container.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unraid_v4371_query_docker_container or unraid_get_docker_logs. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description, with no explicit exclusions or selection criteria.

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