docker_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action; it does not indicate that the operation is read-only, whether it requires a running or stopped container, what the output format is, or any side effects. The existence of an output schema reduces the burden slightly, but the description itself gives no behavioral hints beyond the verb.

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 extremely short (4 words), which is concise but at the expense of informativeness. It lacks structure, such as separating purpose from details. While brevity is valued, this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. A sentence that covers purpose and parameter context would earn a higher score.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a single-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is still woefully incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's value proposition, when to use it, or how to provide the parameter. The overall context of sibling tools and parameter count amplifies the need for more detail.

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% for the single required parameter 'container'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—no explanation of what value to use (ID, name, pattern), no example, no format. Baseline for 1 parameter with 0% coverage demands significant compensation, but the description provides none.

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 'Inspect a Docker container' clearly identifies the verb ('inspect') and resource ('container'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docker_ps (list), docker_logs (logs), or docker_restart (action). However, it does not specify the scope or level of detail returned, leaving some ambiguity about what 'inspect' entails.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many siblings (e.g., docker_ps, docker_stats, docker_logs), an explicit context or condition (e.g., 'Use when you need detailed configuration of a single container, not logs or stats') is essential but entirely missing.

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