gatekeeper_containers_wizard_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the domain scope ('networks + internal network info') but does not detail return structure or potential variations, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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, compact sentence with every phrase adding value: 'Wizard helper' gives usage context, and the parenthetical specifies the fetched data. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 helper with rich annotations, this description is sufficient. It names the two main output categories and the wizard context, so an agent knows what it will receive and why to call it, even without an output schema.

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 and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool; no further clarification is needed.

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?

Description states a specific action ('fetch') and a specific resource ('Docker container-creation context'), and further narrows scope to 'networks + internal network info.' This clearly distinguishes it from wizard validation/port-check siblings and from generic network listing 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 phrase 'Wizard helper' clearly situates this tool as a context-gathering step in the container-creation wizard flow. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the intended usage context is evident from the description and tool name.

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