stop_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional timeout' but does not explain that the timeout is the wait before force-killing, nor does it disclose the container state change or potential side effects beyond stopping.

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 with no redundant words. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's core purpose and distinguishing feature.

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?

As a simple tool with all parameters documented in the schema, the description provides the essential purpose. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks information about return values, behavior when container is already stopped, and the kill-after-timeout detail. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 covers all three parameters (id, format, timeout) with descriptions. The description adds only that timeout is optional, which is already implied by the schema default. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'Stop a running Docker container with optional timeout' clearly identifies the verb (stop), resource (Docker container), and the optional timeout parameter. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like start_container and restart_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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (start/restart), nor are prerequisites or conditions for use mentioned. The usage context is only implicit in the verb 'stop'.

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