docker_inventory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read-only' claim is consistent but adds little. The backend dependency for stacks is genuine added context, but pagination behavior (limit default 20, offset) and what happens when stack_id is omitted with kind=stacks are not disclosed.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the resource enumeration front-loaded and the conditional stack behavior immediately after. Every clause carries information.

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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to carry invocation logic — which it largely does for kind and stack_id. The remaining gap is the undocumented pagination contract (limit/offset), which matters for a listing tool with a default page size of 20.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden: it clarifies kind's three modes and explains that stack_id is meaningful only with kind=stacks. However, limit and offset are never mentioned, and stack_id's default of 0 is left ambiguous (no stack vs. ignored).

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 concrete verb ('lists') and enumerates the exact resources returned: volumes, networks, or Portainer stacks. This distinguishes it from siblings like docker_containers and docker_images by resource type, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives a real prerequisite ('stacks need the Portainer backend') and a conditional mode switch ('Pass stack_id with kind=stacks to get that stack's compose file'), which tells the agent when the stack branch applies. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming where to go for containers/images instead.

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