stop_container

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'stop' without disclosing side effects, whether the container is removed or merely halted, failure conditions, or whether the operation blocks until stopped.

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 extremely brief and to the point, with no redundant wording. It is slightly awkward with 'User will pass' but still structurally efficient.

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 tool this is very sparse. It does not mention expected output, error behavior, whether the container must already exist, or whether it can be restarted later. Even with a simple operation, an agent needs more context to use it reliably.

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 parameter schema is minimal and the description adds little beyond repeating that it is a container name. No format, validation, examples, or constraints are provided, so the description does not meaningfully enrich the schema.

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 clearly identifies the action as stopping a Docker container by name, and the tool name reinforces this. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling actions like starting, restarting, or deleting containers.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not explain scenarios where stopping is appropriate, nor does it contrast with start, restart, or delete.

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