stop_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Stop a container' implies a destructive/mutative action, but it doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether the stop is graceful or forced, what happens to dependent resources, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent invocation.

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, front-loaded with the core action. There is zero wasted language or redundancy. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks critical context: behavioral details (permissions, effects), parameter meaning, error handling, and output expectations. The agent cannot safely use this tool based solely on the description.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema only shows a required 'id' parameter without documentation. The description adds no parameter information—it doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., container ID, name), format, or where to obtain it. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states the action ('stop') and target resource ('a container'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_container' and 'restart_container' by specifying the opposite action. However, it doesn't specify what type of container (e.g., Docker) or system context, leaving some ambiguity.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., container must be running), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'restart_container'. The agent must 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.