start_container

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: no permission requirements, no behavior for an already-running container (idempotent vs error), no async/task semantics, no failure modes. For a state-mutating operation with zero annotation coverage 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?

Two words with no waste, but the size reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded scope or constraint and nothing for the agent to act on beyond the tool 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?

For a one-parameter lifecycle tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what state transition occurs, what happens on an already-running container, and which identifier to pass. None of this is present, so an agent cannot call it confidently without inspecting sibling tools.

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% and the description says nothing about the single 'id' parameter — not whether it is a container ID or name, where to obtain it, or its format. The schema alone leaves it ambiguous, and the description does not compensate.

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 essentially the tool name with the underscore removed: 'Start container'. It states a verb and a resource, but adds no scope, no target type (image? compose? existing container), and no differentiation from the many lifecycle siblings such as restart_container, unpause_container, or start_compose. This is the tautology case rather than a distinct purpose statement.

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 guidance on when to use this versus restart_container, unpause_container, or start_compose, nor any prerequisite (e.g. container must exist and be stopped). An agent must infer the correct lifecycle choice purely from the tool name.

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