docker_stop

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'stop container' without elaborating on side effects, whether it forces shutdown, waits for timeout, or has any impact on related processes. An agent has no idea what to expect beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence with no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though slightly under-specified. Every word earns its place, but the brevity borders on underspecification.

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?

The tool is a mutation (stops a container) with no annotations and no output schema. The description lacks crucial context such as the effect on running processes, whether it is reversible, or what state the container enters. For a mutation tool, this minimal description is insufficient for an agent to use it confidently.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameter information, including the description 'ID or container name'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 (stop) and resource (container) in Russian, so an agent can infer the purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'docker_remove' or 'docker_run', but the verb itself is unambiguous enough for a simple operation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions for stopping, or situations where a different tool (e.g., docker_remove) would be more appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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