container_pause

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description reveals key behavioral traits: the freezer cgroup mechanism, invisibility of the suspension to processes, resource retention, zero CPU usage, and the interaction with exec. This goes far beyond the minimal annotations and provides deep insight into what happens when pausing.

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 and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a brief behavioral explanation, and an args/returns section. Every sentence adds value without bloat, and the structure makes key information easy to scan.

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 single-parameter state-changing operation, the description covers the core behavior, resource impact, recovery path, and a critical limitation (exec fails). It also specifies the return value (inspect payload with State.Paused). This is a complete picture for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by defining the sole parameter: 'id_or_name - The container id or name'. This adds meaning beyond the raw string type, clarifying that either a container ID or name can be provided. While simple, it fully covers the parameter's semantics.

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: 'Suspend all processes in a container using the kernel freezer cgroup.' It uses a specific verb (suspend), resource (container), and mechanism (freezer cgroup), and distinguishes it from SIGSTOP and sibling tools like container_stop/container_kill. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.

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?

It explains when to use this tool by contrasting with SIGSTOP (suspension cannot be observed/intercepted) and notes that a paused container keeps resources but uses no CPU. It also provides clear direction to resume with container_unpause and warns that container_exec will fail until unpaused. This gives explicit context and related-tool alternatives.

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