container_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, failure conditions (e.g., if container is already running), or state changes beyond starting. This is minimal and lacks detail.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core action and scope, with no wasted words.

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 tool with fully described parameters, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks usage guidance and behavioral context. It is adequate but not thorough; no output schema exists, so return behavior is not explained, but the minimal scope of a start operation makes this acceptable.

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 100%, with descriptions for 'attach', 'containerId', and 'interactive'. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema sufficiently explains each parameter.

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 WSL container.' uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('container'), and clearly scopes to stopped containers, distinguishing it from container_run which creates a new container. This directly and unambiguously states the tool's function.

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 implies usage for existing stopped containers, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like container_run or container_restart. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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