gatekeeper_list_containers

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

Annotations already establish the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds only the Gatekeeperd scoping detail and no further behavioral traits such as whether stopped containers are included or what fields are returned, which is acceptable but not especially rich.

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 sentence states the action, resource, and scope with no filler or repeated information. The most important qualifier ('all ... visible to Gatekeeperd') is included immediately with the verb.

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 parameterless, read-only enumeration, the description is sufficient to let an agent invoke it correctly. The missing return-value details are a minor gap because no output schema is provided, but the tool's purpose is simple and the result is implied by 'List'.

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 takes zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to supplement. This matches the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('Docker containers') and scopes the result to those 'visible to Gatekeeperd on the host'. This is more specific than a generic container listing, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named sibling list_docker_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 intended use is implied from the purpose: when you need all Docker containers as seen by Gatekeeperd. However, the description does not name alternative tools like list_docker_containers or state conditions under which one should be preferred, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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