docker_restart

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 does well by explaining that the container 'goes down and comes back' and that a successful restart command does not mean the app inside is serving again. This is a meaningful behavioral caveat beyond what the schema conveys, although it does not discuss permissions, auth, or failure modes.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second clarifies the success semantics, and the third provides operational guidance. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the invocation target, the behavioral consequence of restart, and the meaning of the result. It does not describe possible error conditions or prerequisites, but the schema covers parameter semantics and the core caveat is stated clearly.

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 fully documents both parameters (name and server), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the operation targets a container 'by name,' which aligns with the required parameter but contributes no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on the optional server parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Restart a Docker container by name.' It clearly distinguishes the action from sibling tools like docker_stop, docker_list, and docker_logs by framing it as a restart rather than a stop, list, or log retrieval, and the 'by name' qualifier anchors the primary parameter.

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 final sentence gives concrete guidance: 'Read the logs first if you do not know why it needs restarting.' This implicitly points to a sibling tool (docker_logs) and tells the agent when to gather more context before acting. It lacks an explicit 'use tool X instead' statement or a when-not-to-use condition, but the context is clear.

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