discover_docker_processes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the observation is bounded, the container must already exist and be local, and only a narrow set of fields is returned. No contradiction with 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?

One dense sentence with no filler. Every clause earns its place: scope is stated, boundedness is explicit, and the limited return set is front-loaded. This is an appropriately concise tool description.

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?

There is an output schema, so return-value details do not need to be repeated. Annotations cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description communicates the core constraints. Minor gap: it does not mention failure cases like a nonexistent container, but that is not critical for a simple local observation tool.

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 indirectly clarifies container_reference as an existing local container and observation_duration_ms as the bound on CPU observation, but it does not explain accepted formats, valid ranges, or how the default interacts with behavior. For only two simple parameters this is adequate but not thorough.

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 uses a specific verb ('Observe') and clearly identifies the resource: bounded CPU deltas for one existing local container. It also specifies the exact output fields, which makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from broader Docker collection or optimization tools.

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 implies the tool is for a single, existing local container and for bounded CPU observation, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so the agent must infer when this is the right tool.

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