zima_restart_container

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the allowlist eligibility constraint, but omits that a restart causes downtime/state loss, whether the call blocks until the container is back up, and how failures are surfaced.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the eligibility constraint second. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a simple one-parameter tool: it says what happens and the eligibility rule. But as an annotation-free mutation tool it leaves the operational consequences of a restart (downtime, blocking behavior, error mode) unstated.

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% and the single 'container' parameter is already documented as 'Container name to restart.' The description reinforces the single-named-container constraint but adds no format, naming, or lookup details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 verb and resource ('Restart one named container') with unambiguous scope. Against the read-only siblings (zima_docker_ps, zima_top, zima_container_logs), the mutating 'restart' action is immediately distinguishable without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a clear precondition/exclusion: only containers in ZIMA_RESTART_ALLOWLIST are eligible, which tells the agent when the call will fail. It does not, however, point to any sibling (e.g., zima_container_logs) for diagnosing a container before or after restart.

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