docker_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation ("Show") with no destructive side effects. However, it doesn't mention if all containers are shown or only running ones, or the output format/structure. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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, short sentence that captures the exact purpose. No filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema present, and 100% schema coverage, the description need only clarify the purpose and scope. It does so effectively. Minor miss: no mention of whether this targets running containers or all containers, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a small gap.

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 has 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info because none exists. This is a fully documented case with no gaps—no compensation needed.

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 the verb "Show" and the resource "containers" with specific metrics (CPU, memory, network, block I/O). It distinguishes from siblings like docker_ps (listing) or docker_logs (logs) by focusing on usage metrics. Could be more specific about scope (running containers only?) but is clear overall.

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 implies this is for monitoring container resource usage, which is distinct from listing containers (docker_ps) or inspecting details (docker_inspect). However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor mention of prerequisites like needing a running container.

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