list_docker_containers

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

Annotations already establish safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), but the description adds little beyond that. It does not clarify behavior such as whether 'all' controls running vs. stopped containers or how filters behave.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by usage context. No filler or redundant wording.

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 tool this is close to adequate, but the required 'all' parameter is undocumented, and there is no output schema to compensate. The description omits key invocation semantics that would let an agent call it correctly without guessing.

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 carries the burden, but it only hints at filtering by name/image and says nothing about the required boolean 'all' parameter. An agent cannot reliably determine what 'all' should be set to.

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') and resource ('Docker containers'), and adds concrete use cases: checking what containers are running or finding a container by name/image. This clearly distinguishes it from singular status tools like get_container_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 explicitly says when to use it: when the user asks what containers are running or wants to find a container by name/image. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but the stated context is clear enough for routing.

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