stop_container

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

The annotations already communicate that this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral context such as whether the container is stopped gracefully, what happens if the container is already stopped, or whether any state is preserved. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not build on them.

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 four words long, front-loaded with the action and target, and contains no filler or redundant information. It is as concise as a tool description can be.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable, and the annotations cover the mutation and safety profile. However, with no output schema and no parameter-level explanation, the description leaves some uncertainty about expected input values and result/error behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 does not explain the name_or_id parameter beyond the schema's property title. The parameter name and title provide some basic meaning, but the description itself adds no clarification about input format or how to specify the container.

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 verb ('Stop') and resource ('a Docker container'), making the operation immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_container, restart_container, and get_container_status without needing extra explanation.

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 implies the tool should be used when a Docker container needs to be stopped, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings such as start_container or restart_container. It also omits prerequisites like the container needing to exist or be running.

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