list_containers

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. The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about pagination, required permissions, whether the accout must exist, or what happens with no containers. This is thin coverage for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 one-sentence description is short and front-loads the action and resource. It contains no wasted words, though 'for an account' is somewhat redundant with the account_id parameter. The minimalism is better than verbose filler but does leave semantic gaps.

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 the large sibling toolset and no output schema or annotations, this description is not complete enough for reliable selection. It fails to define what a container is, which makes the tool ambiguous among many list_* tools. The single parameter is documented, but the overall tool behavior and selection context are under-specified.

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%, and the account_id parameter is documented as 'The account ID'. The description's 'for an account' maps directly to that parameter but adds no extra syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already 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 names a verb ('List') and a resource ('containers'), and specifies the account scope. However, 'containers' is underspecified and the description does nothing to distinguish this from the many sibling list_* tools (e.g., list_r2_buckets, list_d1_databases, list_accounts). Without defining what kind of containers are meant, an agent cannot confidently route to this tool.

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 when to use guidance is provided. The description does not mention any alternatives or exclusion criteria, even though the sibling list contains many similar list_* tools that operate on accout-level resources. This leaves the agent to infer suitability from the tool name alone.

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