container_exec

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

The description mentions output capping (200 lines/10KB), which is useful. However, it lacks disclosure that the command may modify the container state, that the container must be running, or details about exit code handling. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden and misses several behavioral traits.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second provides a key behavioral constraint. No wasted 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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It covers output capping but omits the prerequisite that the container must be running. Given the low complexity, this is a minor 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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying the TTY parameter or command format. Baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'Run' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a command in a running container'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like container_logs or container_action by focusing on command execution.

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 usage for executing commands in a running container but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like container_action or compose_action. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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