stop_container

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'gracefully' but doesn't specify the signal sent, timeout handling, or effect on container state. The description is inadequate for a mutating tool.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the key verb, but it is under-specified. Conciseness is marred by missing essential information.

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?

With 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain prerequisites, expected inputs, or return values.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions none of the four parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema field names, leaving the agent uncertain about how 'timeout', 'env_id', and 'agent_token' affect the operation.

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 the action ('Stop') and the resource ('a running container'), and adds 'gracefully' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'kill_container' that do a forceful stop.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'kill_container' or 'pause_container'. The description only implies graceful stopping without stating when not to use it.

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