Unraid API docker.container.tailscaleStatus

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail by noting the auth URL is deliberately omitted, which helps the agent understand the response scope. However, it does not describe forceRefresh effects or other response behavior, so it adds only moderate value beyond annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and the most important qualification are stated immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool is simple and annotations cover the safety profile, but there is no output schema and one parameter (forceRefresh) is unexplained. The description provides enough for basic invocation but not full self-sufficiency, since an agent cannot reason about the forceRefresh option.

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%, so the description must compensate. It identifies that 'one container' maps to the required id parameter, but it never explains the optional forceRefresh boolean. With two parameters and no schema descriptions, leaving one completely undocumented is a significant gap.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('Tailscale status for one container'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('without returning its authentication URL'). This separates it from siblings like query_docker_container, which likely returns the full container details.

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 establishes clear context: it is for exactly one container and explicitly excludes the authentication URL. This implies when it should be used, but it does not name an alternative tool for cases where the URL is needed, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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