Docker Container Action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it does disclose that this is a write operation and names destructive/impactful actions (stop, restart, kill). However, it omits authorization requirements, side effects, reversibility, and error behavior, so the disclosure is only minimally adequate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple action tool and the action list is easy to scan.

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 description plus rich schema and output schema cover the operation and parameters/returns, but it lacks usage guidance and safety context. For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, it is minimally complete rather than fully informative.

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 83%, so the schema documents most parameters, including host, port, scheme, profile, and container_id. The description repeats the action enum values but adds no extra meaning or usage detail for the parameters.

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?

States a specific resource (容器/container) and enumerates the four supported operations (start/stop/restart/kill), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from neighboring tools such as docker_container_rm or docker_container_update, which keeps it from a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like docker_container_update, docker_container_rm, or app_start/app_stop. The description only labels the actions as write operations, leaving context and prerequisites to inference.

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