inspect_docker_capability

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by specifying the fixed local endpoint and cgroup-v2 focus, and by confirming that no container lifecycle operations are performed. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, tightly worded sentence. It front-loads the tool's purpose and immediately conveys its non-invasive scope without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what scope is inspected and what side effects are avoided, which is sufficient to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameter semantics are not a concern. Schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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 verb 'inspect' and the specific resources (local Docker endpoint and cgroup-v2 support). It also differentiates the tool from sibling inspection tools by explicitly saying it does not start, stop, build, pull, or profile containers.

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 this tool is for safe, read-only inspection by listing what it avoids, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling inspection tools or when not to use it. The usage context is clear, but alternatives and exclusion criteria are not directly addressed.

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