restart_container

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, and it discloses nothing: not whether the restart is graceful or forced, what downtime to expect, whether data is preserved, or what permissions are required. For a state-mutating container operation this is a serious gap.

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?

At two words, this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded information because there is no information at all beyond the name.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, no parameter documentation, and a description identical to the name. An agent has nothing to act on beyond guessing, which is inadequate for a container restart operation.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'id' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never mentions how the container is identified (ID vs name), leaving the one parameter's semantics entirely unspecified.

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 is an exact restatement of the tool name, adding no distinguishing information. It does name a verb and resource (restart a container), so it is minimally interpretable, but it does nothing to separate it from siblings like start_container, stop_container, or restart_compose.

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 on when to use this versus start_container/stop_container/pause_container, and no prerequisites or state requirements (e.g. must the container be running?). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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