start_container

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It states the core behavior (starts container) and output (UPID), but omits details like idempotency, error states, or required permissions. It is average—covers the main action but not side effects or preconditions.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and result. This is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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's simplicity (start action, two params, output schema exists), the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks context on whether the action is synchronous, what happens if the container is already running, or how to interpret the UPID. With richer annotations or parameter descriptions, this could be improved.

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 adds no explanation for 'node' or 'vmid'. The agent gets no context on what these parameters represent (e.g., node name, container ID), relying solely on the schema titles. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 explicitly states the action ('Start an LXC container') and the return value ('returns the task UPID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like stop_container, reboot_container, etc., by using a specific verb and resource.

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 tool versus alternatives (e.g., start_vm for VMs), no prerequisites mentioned, and no scenarios where the tool should not be used. The description is purely declarative.

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