container_restart

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

Beyond the annotations (which only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false), the description reveals critical behavior: the stop signal sequence (STOPSIGNAL default SIGTERM, SIGKILL after stop_timeout_seconds), the return of the inspect payload, and the self-container refusal. This gives the agent a full behavioral model without contradicting the 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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a brief behavioral explanation, usage alternatives, a limitation, and labeled args/returns sections. Every sentence delivers unique value, and the structure makes the information scannable. It is thorough without being redundant.

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 tool's complexity (stop/start behavior, timeout, edge case) and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers all needed context: what it does, how it behaves, when to use alternatives, parameters, return value, and a known limitation. No critical detail is omitted.

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 provides zero parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description manually documents both parameters: id_or_name as the container identifier and stop_timeout_seconds as "Seconds between the stop signal and SIGKILL (default 10)." This adds meaning that the schema alone lacks, fully compensating for the gap.

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 "Restart a container: stop then start again in one call," which clearly states a specific action (restart) on a specific resource (container). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools container_stop and container_start by offering a combined operation, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides direct usage guidance: "Use container_stop/container_start to do the halves separately." It also gives a clear when-not scenario: "When the server runs containerized it refuses to restart its own container." This tells the agent exactly when to prefer alternatives and when the tool will fail.

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