gatekeeper_create_container

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

The annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful context: it is part of a 4-step deployment, envFilePath is loaded server-side by Gatekeeperd, and the container must be verified running afterward. However, it does not disclose what happens if a container with the same name already exists, what occurs if creation fails, or any cleanup or rollback behavior.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the deployment ordering is front-loaded, required versus optional fields are stated compactly, and the env/envFilePath decision rule and post-creation verification are included without filler. It is dense yet structured for quick parsing.

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 container-creation tool with 9 underdocumented parameters, no output schema, and only sparse annotations, the description addresses ordering and env handling but misses parameter formats and failure behavior. It is a solid start, but the agent would still need Docker knowledge to correctly populate ports, volumes, network, and restartPolicy.

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 schema has 0% property description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It compensates by naming all optional parameters and providing meaningful guidance on env vs envFilePath. Still, it gives no format or semantic details for ports, volumes, network, or restartPolicy, leaving the agent to infer Docker conventions.

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 states a specific action ('Create and start') and resource ('a new Docker container'), with the scope 'with custom configuration.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like start_container, stop_container, and restart_container, and the 'step 1 of 4' label reinforces its entry-point role.

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 explicitly says this is step 1 of 4, instructs the agent to do it first, and directs verifying the container is running before proceeding to project creation. It also gives conditional guidance for choosing env vs envFilePath. It does not explicitly name when not to use this tool, but the creation semantics make the intended context clear.

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