start_container

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds the behavioral advice to check status first, implying the operation may fail if already running, but it doesn't disclose what happens on failure or whether it's async. Since annotations carry the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 that front-loads the action and then adds the conditional check. It is concise, with no unnecessary words, and follows a clear structure.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering mutability and idempotency, the description is mostly complete. It gives the action and a key precondition. It doesn't mention return behavior or failure modes, but those are minor given the simplicity.

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 parameter name_or_id. The description does not elaborate on what name_or_id refers to (e.g., container name or ID). The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional semantic detail, failing to bridge the coverage gap.

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: 'Start a Docker container.' The verb 'start' and resource 'container' are specific and distinguish it from siblings like stop_container and restart_container. It also adds a precondition about checking status, which clarifies its scope.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Check status first unless the user explicitly asked to start it.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives (like get_container_status) and when to skip the check. It doesn't name the specific status tool but implies it, which is clear enough.

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