gatekeeper_stop_container

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

Annotations already convey that this is a state-changing operation (`readOnlyHint: false`) and non-idempotent. The description adds the useful constraint that the target must be a running container, which suggests behavior if the container is already stopped. It does not describe side effects or failure modes, but the annotations lower the burden.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler: 'Stop a running container.' Every word earns its place, and there is nothing redundant or irrelevant for such a simple operation.

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 simple, but the description is too thin given the surrounding toolset. It does not clarify whether this applies to Docker containers, gatekeeper-managed containers, or how it differs from the sibling `stop_container`. With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent without enough context to reliably distinguish and invoke this tool in ambiguous situations.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented `name` parameter. It only says 'a running container,' which weakly implies `name` identifies that container, but it does not explicitly explain what value to provide, such as container name, ID, or a gatekeeper-specific identifier.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Stop a running container.' It is unambiguous about the action, but it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling `stop_container` or related `gatekeeper_*` container tools. It is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `stop_container`, `gatekeeper_restart_container`, or `gatekeeper_delete_container`. The description implies using it when you want to stop a container, but it provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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