container_start

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses idempotency: calling on an already-running container has no effect and the daemon returns 304 without raising an error. It also states the return value (inspect payload), adding behavioral context not available in structured fields.

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 main purpose sentence, usage instructions, a behavioral note, and a concise args/returns section. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition of schema or annotations. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no output schema), but the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, edge case behavior, parameter semantics, and what the return value is. No important gaps remain.

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 only parameter id_or_name has no description in the schema, leaving it as just a string. The tool description fully compensates by explaining it accepts the container's full/short id or name, which is exactly what the agent needs to invoke correctly.

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 starts with 'Start an existing stopped container', which is a clear verb+resource statement. It explicitly distinguishes itself from container_run (create and start) and container_restart (stop then start), making it easy to pick the right tool.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: restart a previously created or stopped container without removing it. It names alternates (container_run, container_restart) and notes the behavior when called on a running container (304, no error), which is critical for proper usage.

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