gatekeeper_get_container

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful context about matching by exact name or ID prefix, but it does not disclose what 'details' are returned or how errors like not-found are handled.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning: operation, resource, cardinality, and identifier matching.

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 simple one-parameter read-only lookup, the description is largely complete: it says what the tool does and how the parameter is interpreted. The absence of output/return details is mitigated by the lack of an output schema, and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does this by clarifying that the single 'name' parameter can accept either a container name or an ID prefix, which is valuable beyond the plain 'Name' title in the schema. It stops short of giving examples or format details.

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 ('Get') and a clear resource ('details for a single container'), with an explicit identifier scoping ('by name or ID prefix'). It is distinguishable from list-oriented siblings like list_docker_containers and gatekeeper_list_containers, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_container_status or gatekeeper_get_container_health.

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 get_container_status, get_container_logs, or gatekeeper_get_container_health. There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection hints.

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