docker_container_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool is 'SAFE' (read-only), which is a behavioral hint. However, it does not disclose other traits like whether it requires Docker daemon access, latency implications, or whether statistics are aggregated or streaming. The '[SAFE]' label adds value but leaves gaps.

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 that is clear and front-loaded with the safety label. It avoids unnecessary words but could be slightly more informative without compromising conciseness. Overall, it is well-structured.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain output format (e.g., JSON with CPU/memory metrics), behavior (e.g., continuous vs. snapshot), or prerequisites. The tool's simplicity mitigates this slightly, but more context is needed for full usability.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'containerId' parameter (e.g., whether it expects container name or ID, format, or how to obtain it). The description fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get real-time resource usage statistics for a Docker container'. It uses a specific verb (Get) and identifies the resource (resource usage statistics for a Docker container). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docker_container_inspect (detailed info) and docker_container_logs (logs). The '[SAFE]' prefix further clarifies its non-destructive nature.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as docker_container_inspect or docker_container_logs. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. Users must infer from the purpose alone.

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