start_container

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and target state, omitting important details like idempotency, error behavior, permissions, or return values. For a mutating operation, this is a notable gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff or redundant information. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 two-parameter operation, the description captures the core purpose. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details about return values, failure modes, and prerequisites, which leaves the description partially incomplete for a tool that performs a state-changing operation.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters 'node' or 'vmid'. Although the parameter names are relatively self-explanatory, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Start a stopped LXC container' clearly identifies the specific verb (start), the resource (LXC container), and the condition (stopped), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_vm or stop_container. It is both specific and concise.

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 clear context by specifying the target state (stopped) and resource (LXC container). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using start_vm for VMs or warning against restarting an already running container, but the context is still unambiguous.

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