container_start_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, but it only reveals the basic action of starting a stopped container. It does not mention side effects (state change, resource allocation), error conditions (non-existent container, already-running container), permissions, or idempotency. Minimal behavioral context is provided.

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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, effectively communicating the tool's purpose without any fluff.

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?

The description is minimally viable for a simple one-parameter tool; the output schema covers return values and the schema covers parameter meaning. However, it lacks contextual completeness because it doesn't mention preconditions (e.g., container must exist, must be stopped), potential side effects, or how it differs from container_restart_tool. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is fair.

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% because the only parameter 'name' is documented as 'Container name or ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The schema fully explains the parameter, making further description unnecessary.

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 ('Start') and the target resource ('a stopped container'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like container_stop_tool, container_restart_tool, and container_kill_tool by focusing on starting a stopped 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. The description only states what the tool does without mentioning exclusions (e.g., containers already running) or recommending other tools for related operations like container_create_tool. The implied usage is clear from the name but not explicitly stated.

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