wake_container

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the operation is idempotent ('a no-op if it is already running'), that it can be triggered indirectly by web traffic, and that it returns the updated container. These are useful behavioral details that annotations alone do not convey.

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 compact and well-structured: it opens with the core action, then adds the no-op caveat, the automatic-wake note, and the return value. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy.

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 with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, the no-op condition, a relevant side-channel trigger, and the return value. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 fully documents containerId as 'The container's UUID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but none is needed given the schema is complete and the single parameter is self-explanatory.

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 verb ('Wake'), a resource ('a slept container'), and the desired outcome ('so it serves traffic again'). It also clarifies the no-op case for already-running containers, which makes the tool's exact purpose unmistakable and distinguishable from sleep_container.

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 indicates when the tool applies: wake a slept container. It also gives an important contextual signal that a public web request wakes the container automatically, which helps an agent decide whether this explicit call is necessary. It does not explicitly name the sibling sleep_container as the inverse alternative, but the semantics are clear enough.

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