container_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing safety and behavior. It makes clear this is a read-only snapshot operation via `--no-stream`, which is useful context. However, it does not mention potential prerequisites (e.g., Docker daemon access) or that 'Live' actually means a one-time snapshot, though the command hint partially clarifies this.

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 entire description is a single concise sentence that packs the key output metrics and the equivalent command. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the output data (CPU%, memory, net/block I/O) and the mode (no-stream snapshot). It is complete for an agent to understand what the tool returns and that it is a safe, read-only operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain any input semantics. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately adds no irrelevant parameter details.

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 provides live per-container CPU%, memory, and net/block I/O stats, which is a specific and distinct function from container listing, inspection, or logs. The reference to `docker stats --no-stream` further anchors the resource and behavior, making it easy to identify the tool's purpose.

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 implies usage by naming the exact docker command, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over siblings like top_processes, docker_system_df, or container_inspect. There is no mention of alternatives or the difference between container-level and host-level statistics, so guidance is only implicit.

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