docker_ps

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the flag behavior is clearly stated, which is adequate for a simple tool, but it does not disclose return format or any additional effects.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and parameter behavior with no extraneous words.

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 with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the functionality sufficiently. It explains the only parameter's effect and the tool's core purpose, though it omits any context about when to use it vs compose tools.

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 input schema provides only a type and default, with no description, so the description's explanation of 'all_containers' adds essential meaning by clarifying that setting it to true includes stopped containers.

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 identifies the action ('List') and resource ('Docker containers'), and the mention of 'include stopped containers' clarifies its scope. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like docker_images, though it does not explicitly contrast with docker_compose_ps.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. However, the purpose is self-evident for listing containers, so usage is implied rather than clearly established.

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