container_restart_toolRestart a Podman container by name or ID, optionally setting a timeout in seconds before it is killed. Use it to recover a stopped or unresponsive container.
Restart a container.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Container name or ID | |
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait before killing (default: 10) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Restart a container' implies a mutation, but it does not disclose permissions required, what happens to running processes, downtime, reversibility, or how the timeout parameter affects behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is arguably too terse for a tool with two parameters and an output schema, and it lacks structure that would help an agent understand its place among many container lifecycle siblings.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description is still incomplete. With no annotations and many sibling alternatives, the description should cover when to use it, behavioral implications of restart, and any safety or permission context. It provides none of these.
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 both parameters documented in the input schema (name and timeout). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Restart a container'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling tools such as container_start_tool, container_stop_tool, or container_kill_tool, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone when restart is preferred.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'Restart a container' implies usage, but nothing tells an agent whether to choose restart over stop/start or kill.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.