wake_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates the state transition (sleeping -> serving again) and the intended effect, but it does not mention what happens if the container is already awake, whether there is a delay, or any side effects. This is adequate but not richly 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates what the tool does, the target resource, and the expected outcome with no unnecessary words. It earns a top score for conciseness and structure.

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 with only one required parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the core action. However, it omits useful context such as how to confirm success, what failure modes exist, or whether waking has cost or time implications. This is serviceable for a minimal tool but not complete.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'container' is already described as 'Container name or id' in the schema. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond the context that it applies to a sleeping free-plan container, so the baseline score 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 states a specific action ('Wake') and a specific resource ('free-plan container') plus the intended outcome ('so its URL serves again'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like start_container or stop_container by focusing on the sleeping/free-plan state.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when a container is sleeping on a free plan. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it loses one point, but the condition is concrete enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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