container_pause

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

The description discloses that a paused container retains resources but consumes no CPU, and that the return payload has State.Paused true. It also notes the exec failure. While annotations are minimal (no readOnly/destructive hints), the description adds functional behavior beyond the schema. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and includes a comparison and a warning in a clear structure. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the effect on resources, the resume path, a caveat (exec failure), and the return payload. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description must explain the sole parameter id_or_name. It implicitly refers to the container (e.g., 'the container's full inspect payload'), but never explicitly states that id_or_name is the container ID or name. The meaning is inferable from context but not directly stated, so it adds only marginal semantic value.

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 states a specific verb ('Suspend') and resource ('container'), and specifies the mechanism ('kernel freezer cgroup'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like container_stop or container_kill. It also contrasts with SIGSTOP, further clarifying its unique purpose.

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 description explicitly explains when to use this tool (to suspend without signal interception), what to avoid (SIGSTOP), and what to do next (resume with container_unpause). It also warns that container_exec fails on a paused container, giving concrete guidance on consequences and alternatives.

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