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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get container logs' and does not mention output format, streaming behavior, read-only nature, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, clear sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential action.

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 log retrieval tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it does not explain return values or behavior nuances (e.g., whether it outputs raw logs or includes metadata). With no output schema and no annotations, additional context would have improved completeness.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (container and tail) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 'Получить логи контейнера' means 'Get container logs', which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like docker_run, docker_ps, docker_stop, and docker_remove, which perform different operations on containers.

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 you need container logs), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. For a simple tool this is understandable, but it lacks explicit context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get list of containers' without revealing that by default only running containers are shown, or any other behavioral traits such as output format or dependencies on the Docker daemon.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It effectively communicates the action without any waste.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description is adequate but not rich. It does not explain return value details or the default running-only filter, though the schema parameter description covers the default behavior. Without an output schema, a bit more context could be provided, but the tool is straightforward.

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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'all' is fully described with its default value and meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get list of containers' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the action of listing containers. It distinguishes from sibling tools like docker_run, docker_stop, docker_remove, and docker_logs, which perform different operations.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The tool name and sibling context imply usage for listing containers, but the description does not state when to choose this over other tools or mention the 'all' parameter behavior.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal that the operation is destructive, what side effects occur (e.g., deleting volumes), or whether a running container can be removed without force. The description only restates the tool's name without any additional behavioral context.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It is fully front-loaded and immediately clear, making it highly concise.

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 tool is simple, but the description omits critical context about the destructive nature of the operation, the need to stop a running container, and the purpose of the 'force' flag. With no output schema and minimal description, an agent would lack essential information for safe invocation.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (container and force), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, 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 'Удалить контейнер' clearly specifies the verb 'remove' and resource 'container', distinguishing it from sibling tools like docker_run, docker_ps, docker_stop, and docker_logs. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that docker_stop might be needed before removal, nor does it explain that the 'force' parameter is relevant for running containers. The description is purely a statement of the action.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects like image pulling, container creation, detach behavior, or return values, providing only the basic action statement.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail. It is optimally brief and 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?

Despite the schema covering parameters, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should explain behavior and return values. It does not, making it incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters and side effects like image management and port binding.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 'Запустить Docker контейнер' clearly states the action (run) and resource (Docker container), distinguishing it from siblings like docker_ps and docker_stop which manage existing containers. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from alternatives, so it is clear but not exemplary.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without context such as prerequisites or use cases, leaving the agent to infer when to invoke it.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'stop container' without elaborating on side effects, whether it forces shutdown, waits for timeout, or has any impact on related processes. An agent has no idea what to expect beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence with no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though slightly under-specified. Every word earns its place, but the brevity borders on underspecification.

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 tool is a mutation (stops a container) with no annotations and no output schema. The description lacks crucial context such as the effect on running processes, whether it is reversible, or what state the container enters. For a mutation tool, this minimal description is insufficient for an agent to use it confidently.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter information, including the description 'ID or container name'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the 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 action (stop) and resource (container) in Russian, so an agent can infer the purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'docker_remove' or 'docker_run', but the verb itself is unambiguous enough for a simple operation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions for stopping, or situations where a different tool (e.g., docker_remove) would be more appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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