Inspect Docker containers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear; the description adds only the default filtering behavior. It does not mention that the Docker daemon must be reachable, what happens on connection failure, or whether results are a point-in-time snapshot — meaningful context for a tool that depends on an external runtime.

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 purpose and then the default scope; nothing is wasted. Minor redundancy with the schema's default value keeps it from a 5.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema and explicit readOnly annotations, the description covers purpose and default scope adequately. It stops short of explaining the daemon dependency or result semantics, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already explains that it includes stopped containers, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's "shown by default" merely restates the default value rather than adding selectivity nuance. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List local Docker containers and their current status"), which is unambiguous on its own. Sibling tools are unrelated (logs, JSON formatting, git), so no sibling differentiation is required. The only friction is the title saying "Inspect" while the description narrows scope to listing, a mild mismatch.

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?

"Running containers are shown by default" implies the condition under which includeStopped matters, but it never says when to prefer this over other ways of querying container state, nor any prerequisites. The absence of related siblings softens the gap, but guidance is implied rather than stated.

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