list_containers

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

The description adds the include_all behavior and output fields, but fails to mention the schema default of include_all=true, which is inconsistent with the 'docker ps' baseline of showing only running containers. No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility; it partially fulfills this but leaves default behavior ambiguous.

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?

A single, dense sentence that conveys the core purpose and the parameter effect. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential output fields and include_all behavior. However, the default-value ambiguity slightly undermines completeness, and no mention of error conditions or permissions is present. Given the simplicity, it's adequate.

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 schema has only one parameter with 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly explains include_all adds stopped, providing meaning beyond the bare schema. It doesn't clarify the default value, but the schema does.

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 tool as listing Docker containers with names/status/image, using the familiar 'docker ps' command as a reference. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'list', the meaning is unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like list_images or container_stats.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as container_stats or container_inspect. The only hint is include_all's effect, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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