container_start

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the effect on already-running containers (returns 304, no error). It also implies state change. Annotations are readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, which align with the mutation but non-destructive nature. However, it could mention permissions or side effects more explicitly.

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, with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, and then parameter and return value details. Each sentence adds value.

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 start tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the action, alternatives, edge case (already running), and return value. It could mention prerequisites (container must exist) but that is implied.

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 parameter `id_or_name` has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description provides added meaning: 'Container id (full or short) or name'. This compensates for the lack of schema description, though it could be more detailed.

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 'Start an existing stopped container' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning `container_run` and `container_restart` for alternative use cases.

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 states when to use this tool: to restart a previously created or stopped container. It also provides clear alternatives: `container_run` for create+start and `container_restart` for stop+start, and notes that calling on an already-running container has no effect.

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