docker_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Inspect' signals a read-only intent, and the explicit note about gracefully reporting when Docker is missing or the daemon is stopped is valuable. It could go further by clarifying snapshot vs streaming behavior or potential cost of 'stats', but it is already quite transparent.

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 tight sentences front-load the scope first, then the failure behavior, then the most useful action distinction. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition or filler.

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 a read-only status tool with a self-documenting enum schema and no output schema, the definition is sufficiently complete for an agent to know what it does, what actions are available, and what happens when Docker is unavailable. A brief note on return format or output shape could push it to a 5.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of 'overview' and 'stats' mostly restates the schema's own action descriptions, and it adds no additional meaning for the 'filter' parameter beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Inspect') and names the full Docker resource scope: containers, images, networks, volumes, and resource usage. This makes it clearly distinguishable from general-purpose sibling tools such as service_status, process_list, and system_health.

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 intended context is clear: use this when you need Docker-related status or resource information. It even handles the edge case of Docker not being installed or the daemon being stopped. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it just misses the top score.

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