docker_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait that this is a 'point-in-time snapshot' (not streaming or cumulative), but it omits whether the call is read-only, any auth/permission requirements, and any rate-limit or host-reachability caveats.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the metric types and the object scope with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it stops short of adding routing or behavioral detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description supplies the snapshot/semantics context an agent needs; only sibling routing and read-only/auth context are 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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'server' and 'container' are already documented in the schema, including the default-all-containers behavior. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (report) and resource (point-in-time CPU/memory/network/disk snapshot for containers), and the 'containers on a Docker host' scope differentiates it from host-level cpu_usage/memory_usage/disk_usage. It does not, however, explicitly name any sibling alternative to route the agent.

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?

Use is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you need per-container resource usage rather than host metrics or docker_ps listings. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance.

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