list_containers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('List') but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The mention of 'secured by RAD Security' hints at security context but lacks details on access controls or potential side 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists filtering options without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's functionality.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (listing with multiple filters and pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like pagination behavior, error handling, or security requirements, which are important for a tool in a security context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing filterable attributes (image name, digest, namespace, cluster_id, free text search), but doesn't explain syntax or usage beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('List') and resource ('containers secured by RAD Security'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_container_details' by focusing on listing with filtering rather than retrieving details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_images' or 'list_k8s_resources', which could involve overlapping resources.

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 mentions optional filtering but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_images' or 'get_container_details'. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether specific permissions are needed, or when filtering is appropriate versus other listing tools.

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