docker_container_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the confirm=true requirement, but does not explain destructive effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens to a running container during stop/restart.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the available actions and the confirmation prerequisite.

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 mutating container tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. The output schema covers return values, but the description still omits host/container semantics, safety implications, and sibling differentiation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implies the allowed action values and mentions confirm=true, but says nothing about the required container parameter or the optional host parameter, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 specific lifecycle verbs (start, stop, restart, pause, unpause) and the resource (one container), so the agent can identify the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like docker_stack_action or docker_run/create, but 'one container' provides useful scope.

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?

The only usage guidance is the prerequisite 'Needs confirm=true'. There is no explanation of when to choose this tool over alternatives such as docker_stack_action, docker_run, or docker_remove, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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