docker_stop_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the container is stopped, implying a mutation, but does not mention side effects (e.g., losing unsaved state), required permissions, or what happens to dependent containers. The word 'permitido' hints at restrictions but lacks details. This is a marginal improvement over no description but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely short, which could be seen as concise, but it is under-specification rather than efficient writing. It front-loads the action but omits essential context that an agent needs to correctly invoke the tool. Every word must earn its place, but here the few words don't provide enough substance.

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 the tool has an output schema (though not described), and no annotations, the description fails to explain prerequisites, confirmation requirements, or post-condition behavior. The complexity is moderate (3 parameters, mutation), but the description only provides a minimal verb-noun phrase. Essential information like what the 'confirm' parameter does or what the response looks like is entirely absent.

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 gives no information about the three parameters (name, confirm, timeout). The description doesn't clarify what 'name' refers to, what 'confirm' expects, or how 'timeout' behaves. The agent must infer everything from the schema alone, which only provides types and defaults. No added value from the description.

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 identifies a specific action ('Detiene' = stops) and resource ('contenedor' = container), which makes the basic purpose clear. However, the qualifier 'permitido' (allowed) is ambiguous—it could imply permission restrictions but doesn't explain what 'allowed' means. It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like docker_start_container or docker_restart_container beyond the obvious action.

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 conditions, prerequisites, or contexts where stopping a container is appropriate, nor any exclusion of cases where restart or stop via other tools would be better. The description is purely a statement of action without any usage context.

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