list_docker_containers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'list' and the mention of returning 'running status' clearly convey a non-destructive read operation, which is sufficient for this simple tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and scope. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what is returned (containers and status) and the schema covers filtering, though it could explicitly mention that the operation is read-only for absolute clarity.

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 fully documents the single 'status' parameter with its allowed values and default, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no extra semantic beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 lists all Docker containers on the NAS along with their running status. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like control_docker_container and get_nas_status.

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 the tool is for read-only listing, and the sibling name control_docker_container hints at a separation of listing vs controlling. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when to prefer another tool.

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