container_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default foreground behavior and that detach switches to background, which is useful context. However, it does not mention other side effects such as container lifecycle implications (e.g., rm removal, resource constraints, or that it may block until exit). The single behavioral trait disclosed is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a single actionable detail (detach for background). Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. This is an example of concise, efficient communication.

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 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is brief but the schema covers parameter meanings. However, it does not provide context on the overall behavior of the tool (e.g., how command and commandArgs interrelate, whether it pulls images, or what the return value indicates). Given the tool's complexity, a bit more context about the run semantics would be beneficial, but the schema fills many gaps, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond reinforcing the detach parameter (already described as 'Run container in background'). The baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description provides no additional meaning for parameters like env, publish, volume, etc.

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: 'Run a new WSL container.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes from sibling tools like container_start (which starts an existing container) and container_create (which may only create without running). The mention of 'defaults to foreground' adds operational clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from container_create, so a mild deduction is applied.

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 gives a brief operational hint about foreground vs. background ('use detach for background') but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like container_create or container_start. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., image must exist or be pulled) or scenarios where one tool is preferred over another. This is minimal guidance.

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