docker_container_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only declares the tool as safe, but fails to disclose that the 'all' parameter defaults to true (listing stopped containers), or any other behavioral traits like output format or pagination.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it omits critical parameter context and could be structured more informatively (e.g., listing possible parameter values). It earns a passing score for brevity only.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description still lacks completeness by not explaining the 'all' parameter or how it affects results. With many sibling tools, more guidance is needed.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'all' parameter at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain its effect or default value.

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 identifies the action (list), the resource (Docker containers), and the output scope (status, names, basic info). It distinguishes from sibling tools like docker_container_inspect which provides detailed info.

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 includes '[SAFE]' hinting at read-only usage, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like docker_container_stats or docker_container_inspect. Usage is implied but not contrasted.

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