docker_events_summary

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait, and describes the output format. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It adds value by disclosing the read-only nature and return structure beyond the schema.

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 two sentences plus the return format, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what it does, the second states read-only and output structure. Ideal conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description provides the return format, which is helpful. It covers purpose, parameters, and behavior adequately. Missing error handling or edge cases, but for a simple aggregation tool with 2 parameters and no nested objects, this is nearly complete. A 4 is justified.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'on one instance over a lookback window,' which echoes the parameter roles but does not provide new details beyond what the schema already states (instance_id and since_minutes descriptions). Hence, a 3 is appropriate.

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 it aggregates container lifecycle events (die/oom/restart/kill/start) on one instance over a lookback window, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like docker_logs (logs) and docker_stats (stats) by specifying the event aggregation focus.

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 implicitly tells when to use (for aggregating lifecycle events) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives. It mentions 'on one instance' and a lookback window, providing clear context. A 4 is appropriate as it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool names.

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