container_pause

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds rich behavioral detail: suspension via freezer cgroup that cannot be observed/intercepted, resource retention, no CPU consumption, exec failure until unpaused, and the return payload with State.Paused true. This fully discloses the tool's runtime effects.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence primary action, then a brief technical contrast, then consequence/usage notes, and finally a clear args/returns breakdown. Every sentence provides distinct value with no redundant fluff.

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 one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers all essential context: the mechanism, side effects, resource impact, interaction with other tools, and the return value including a key field. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool 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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explicitly defines the parameter: 'id_or_name - The container id or name.' For a single simple string parameter, this is sufficient semantic clarification. It would score 5 if it also noted format or uniqueness constraints, but none are necessary.

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: 'Suspend all processes in a container using the kernel freezer cgroup.' It clearly distinguishes pause from related operations like SIGSTOP and container_stop by explaining the mechanism and behavior, and contrasts with container_unpause and container_exec.

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 implies when to use this tool by contrasting with SIGSTOP and noting that a paused container retains resources but consumes no CPU. It also states that container_exec fails until unpaused, giving a clear 'when-not' condition. However, it does not explicitly compare with container_stop or container_kill.

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