get_container_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it provides 'detailed status' but doesn't add much beyond that. It doesn't explain what the status contains or how to interpret it, but the annotations cover the safety profile; still, it could be more transparent about the granularity of status.

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 sentence that is both concise and front-loaded. It states the tool's purpose and gives a direct usage instruction without any wasted words. It perfectly balances brevity with usefulness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, clear purpose), the description is sufficient. It covers the core usage scenario (checking if a container is running) and the parameter is obvious. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify what statuses are possible, but that might be inferred from the schema or context.

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%, but there is only one parameter 'name_or_id' with its title 'Name Or Id' which is self-explanatory. The description doesn't add any semantics beyond the schema, but the parameter's meaning is clear from the schema itself. Since coverage is low but the parameter is trivial, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides 'Detailed status for one Docker container' with a specific verb 'get' and resource 'container status'. It explicitly says to use it FIRST when asked if a container is running, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_docker_containers, get_container_logs, and compose_status.

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 an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Use FIRST when asked if a container is running.' This provides clear guidance on when to select this tool over alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it, the specific use case is enough to differentiate it from siblings.

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