container_create

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers minimal behavioral context. It discloses the return value (container ID) but does not mention whether the container is started, whether the image must already exist, or any side effects such as resource allocation or network setup.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes the key return information. No wasted words; it earns its place entirely.

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?

Given 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It doesn't explain the creation workflow (e.g., whether the container is ephemeral, how the image is resolved, or what happens if the name exists) and provides only a minimal success signal.

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 provides thorough descriptions for all 13 parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already carries the semantic load, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Create a new WSL container') and mentions the return value (container ID). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from container_run, the verb 'Create' and the return of an ID indicate a creation operation, making the purpose clear.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like container_run or image-related tools. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., image availability) or scenarios where one might prefer container_run over container_create.

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