docker_ps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares read-only behavior, discloses the underlying mechanism (docker inspect over SSH, sudo -n fallback), and names concrete error modes (docker_not_available, docker_permission_denied). This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and fields first, execution/safety model second, return shape and errors last. No redundancy with the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description specifies the exact JSON return shape and the error identifiers, so an agent knows both what it gets back and what failures to expect. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single instance_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the '<account>/<name>' and 'custom/<name>' forms. The description adds only the scoping constraint ('one instance'), so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List Docker containers') with scope ('on one instance') and enumerates the returned fields, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like docker_stats, docker_logs, and docker_events_summary.

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 'on one instance' phrasing implies this is a per-instance inventory call and the field list hints at the use case, but it never states when to prefer this over docker_stats, service_state, or fleet_health_snapshot. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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