container_start

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose 'Requires container.write permission,' which is useful. However, it does not describe side effects, behavior on already-running containers, or what happens if the container is missing, leaving important behavioral aspects unclear.

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 states the action and required permission without any redundant or filler content. 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?

With one simple parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate for basic use. However, it lacks behavioral details such as error conditions or return values, which keeps it from being highly 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?

The input schema covers the single parameter 'id' with 'Container ID or name' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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 'Start a stopped Docker container' clearly states the verb (start) and resource (container), and specifies the state (stopped). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like container_stop or container_remove, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 the tool is used for containers that are stopped, giving some context. However, it provides no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of what to do if the container is already running.

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