run_container

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Create and start' but omits important details such as whether it automatically pulls missing images, how it handles network attachments, or that it may overwrite existing containers with the same name. It does not mention any destructive potential or required permissions.

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 sentence of 19 words, highly concise. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Create and start a new Docker container') and lists features efficiently. While it could use bullet points, the brevity serves its purpose without waste.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters (some nested), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, error handling, or what 'start' entails (e.g., if container already exists). For a complex tool like this, more context (e.g., on cleanup, network defaults, or lifecycle) would be necessary for proper use.

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%, so each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds a summary of supported parameter categories ('image, env, ports, volumes, restart policy, and command override') but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create and start') and the resource ('a new Docker container') with the scope 'one command'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'start_container' (which starts an existing container) and 'compose_up' (which uses a Compose file). The verb is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists supported features (image, env, ports, etc.) but does not explain when to prefer 'run_container' over 'start_container', 'compose_up', or 'build_image'. It lacks when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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