Get Container Stats

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavioral context beyond safety. It adds that the result includes 'a sample of known trace IDs' rather than an exhaustive list, and that stats are per-container with oldest/newest timestamps. This gives the agent an accurate model of what the call will and will not reveal, with no contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important information: what the tool returns and its scope. The Args/Returns sections are slightly redundant with the opening sentence and the schema, but the overall structure is easy to scan and contains no filler.

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 one optional parameter, a clear summary of return contents, and annotations covering the read-only safety profile, the description is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly lists the per-container stats returned, so no critical context 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?

The input schema already fully documents the single optional service_name parameter with an identical explanation ('Omit to get stats for all containers'). The description repeats this guidance but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Return buffer statistics for one or all containers,' and then enumerates exactly what those statistics are (line counts, error/warn counts, trace IDs, timestamps). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_logs or list_active_containers by describing an aggregated snapshot rather than a list or log search.

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 gives clear usage context: it is 'useful for a quick health overview before deeper investigation,' implying this is the first-look tool before using more targeted tools. It stops short of naming specific alternatives or saying when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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