docker_run

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the container runs detached, what happens on name collision, or required permissions (e.g., Docker daemon access). The description is too terse for a mutation 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to cover behavioral aspects.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits important context such as whether the container runs in the foreground, what the return value is (e.g., container ID), and error handling. A more complete description would include these.

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 high (88%), so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds marginal value by grouping 'ports, env, volumes, restart policy', but does not clarify formatting beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Run' and resource 'Docker container', listing key configurable aspects (ports, env, volumes, restart policy). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like docker_exec, docker_logs, and docker_stop.

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 when running a container, but provides no explicit context for when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., docker_exec for interactive commands). Sibling names are provided but not leveraged for guidance.

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