containers

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 usefully discloses that an unsupported device returns an empty list rather than an error, but it does not cover permissions, pagination, or other operational constraints. For a read-only list tool this is adequate but incomplete.

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 definition is front-loaded and short, starting with the tool's core action. The second sentence adds a useful edge case without bloating the description. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.

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 the description does not need to document return values in detail. The main gap is that device_name is never explained despite 0% schema coverage. Given the simple one-parameter shape, the description is minimally adequate but not complete.

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 should compensate for the undocumented device_name parameter. It only implies that device_name identifies a device and does not add format, source, or constraints. The return-field list does not clarify the parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "List containers". It also names the endpoint and summarizes returned fields, so an agent can identify it as a read-only container listing. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as container_config, start_container, or stop_container.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus container_config or the start/stop container tools. The unsupported-device behavior is an edge case, not usage direction. The agent must infer that this is the listing tool from the name and verb alone.

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