run_container

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. It transparently states that it auto-pulls missing images and supports common options, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., container creation failing due to port conflicts) or the output format. The transparency is adequate but not complete.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Create and start a new Docker container'), followed by a list of supported features. Every sentence adds value, no fluff or repetition.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., container ID, status), how to handle common errors (e.g., port conflicts, permission issues), or how it interacts with the container lifecycle (e.g., if the container already exists). Users would need to look elsewhere for essential usage details.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description simply lists the supported parameters without adding new meaning beyond 'Supports image, env, ports, volumes, restart policy, and command override.' This adds little value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 tool creates and starts a new Docker container, listing supported features like image, env, ports, volumes, restart policy, and command override. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like start_container (which starts an existing container) and build_image (which builds an image).

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions auto-pulling missing images, which implies it is used for creating containers from images, but no comparative guidance is given. Users may not know when to prefer this over compose_up or start_container.

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