docker_restart_container

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Reinicia' (restart), which implies a state-changing action, but does not describe side effects (e.g., downtime), permission requirements, or what 'permitido' means. An agent cannot predict the impact or constraints beyond the basic action.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so short that it sacrifices informative content; still, for conciseness alone, it earns a high score, though not a 5 because of the loss of necessary detail.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with no annotations and three undocumented parameters. It lacks any explanation of the 'confirm' mechanism and does not clarify the scope of 'contenedor permitido'. An agent would need external knowledge or experimentation to call this correctly, making it incomplete.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the three parameters: name, confirm, or timeout. It does not explain the required 'confirm' parameter (likely a confirmation flag) or the optional timeout. The agent is left to guess what values to provide, making correct invocation unreliable.

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 (restart) and resource (container), and the qualifier 'permitido' adds a small nuance. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like docker_start_container or docker_stop_container, the verb itself is distinct enough. It is specific but slightly terse.

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. There is no mention of scenarios that favor restart over start/stop, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. The agent is left to infer that restart is for running containers, which is not stated.

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