container_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key live-streaming behavior, but it does not explain that the stream may run indefinitely until interrupted, nor what resource metrics are included, and it adds little beyond the noStream parameter's own schema description.

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 sentence with no filler. 'Live stream' and 'resource usage statistics' are packed with meaning, and the most important behavioral trait is front-loaded.

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?

The schema fully covers parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotation support. The description is adequate for a simple call, but it leaves gaps around what statistics are shown, how the stream terminates, and what the output format looks like.

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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional semantic detail about container selection or the noStream flag, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Display'), a clear resource ('container'), and a distinct domain ('resource usage statistics'). This differentiates the tool from siblings like container_logs or inspect_container without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as container_logs or inspect_container. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions like 'use noStream for a one-time snapshot'.

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