container_create_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new container' and gives no information about side effects, such as whether the container is started automatically, whether the image is pulled, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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 a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but it is perhaps too terse given the tool's complexity, lacking any additional useful context. Still, as a purely concise statement, it rates highly.

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 tool with 6 parameters, an output schema, and 34 sibling tools, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how this tool fits into the container lifecycle (e.g., does it start the container?), how it relates to image pull/start tools, or what prerequisites exist. The context is 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?

The input schema covers all 6 parameters with clear descriptions, including an example for volumes, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level context or additional semantics, earning the baseline score of 3 for high 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new container.' This clearly identifies the action, and the tool name matches the description. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools beyond the name, and there is no elaboration on what 'create' entails (e.g., whether it also starts the container).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the image must already be pulled) or contrast with pod_create_tool or container_start_tool. The description simply states the action, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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