start_container

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Start a container' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description doesn't cover permissions required, side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the container is already running. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word earns its place by stating the core action.

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?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool (starting a container) with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, usage context, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional inference.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no information about the 'id' parameter. It doesn't explain what the ID refers to (e.g., container name, ID format), where to find it, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter undocumented.

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 container' clearly states the action (start) and target resource (container), but it's vague about what 'container' means in this context (Docker, LXC, etc.) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'restart_container' or 'stop_container'. It's a basic verb+resource statement without specificity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'restart_container' or 'stop_container'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., container must exist and be stopped), context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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