container_stop

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

The description exposes behavioral details beyond the minimal annotations: the stop signal sequence (STOPSIGNAL then SIGKILL after timeout), the default SIGTERM, and the refusal to stop its own container when running containerized. This adds significant context and no contradiction with 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 compact and well-structured, using short paragraphs and an args/returns section. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary repetition or 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return type (dict) and points to State.ExitCode for exit code. It also covers a key edge case (self-container refusal). The description is thorough for the tool's 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 fully compensates by explaining both parameters: id_or_name as container id or name, and stop_timeout_seconds as seconds between stop signal and SIGKILL, including the default value 10. This adds real semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare type declarations.

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 'Gracefully stop a running container', clearly stating the verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from container_kill, container_restart, and container_pause, so the agent can immediately tell what this tool does uniquely.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Prefer this over container_kill for a clean shutdown' and 'Use container_restart to stop and start again in one call, or container_pause to freeze processes without stopping.' Also mentions the self-container refusal edge case, giving clear when-to-use context.

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