stop_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, and it does well by explicitly noting the operation is safe, reversible, and cannot delete anything 'by design.' This goes beyond minimal expectations, although it stops short of detailing side effects like state changes or idempotency.

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?

One tight sentence front-loads the action and adds a valuable safety note without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is quite complete: action, target state, safety, and reversibility are all addressed. It could mention expected return output or behavior on an already-stopped container, but these are minor for a straightforward stop operation.

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 covers the single parameter with a clear description ('Container name or id'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond this, 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('a running container'), making the tool's function instantly identifiable. The parenthetical about safety and reversibility further differentiates it from destructive operations and clarifies scope.

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 clearly establishes context: use it to stop a running container despite no explicit alternative references. Sibling tools like start_container and wake_container make the contrast implicit, but the description could have explicitly stated 'To start, use start_container' for stronger routing.

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