container_start

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

With no annotations supplied, the description does the heavy lifting and does disclose real behavior: it performs a start and then blocks waiting for srvinfo to respond, and it requires confirm:true. What it omits is the failure mode — whether it times out, errors, or returns partial success if srvinfo never answers — which matters most for a blocking operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by the blocking behavior and the confirmation requirement. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 with no output schema, the definition covers what it does and the confirm gate. It is not fully complete for a blocking call because it never states what the caller should expect on timeout or failure, leaving the agent unable to reason about error handling.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema ("Must be true to actually run"), and the description only restates that requirement rather than adding syntax or edge cases. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"docker start on the P5 container" gives a concrete verb and a named target resource, and the second clause adds that the call blocks until srvinfo answers, which separates it from a pure status check. It does not explicitly contrast itself with container_stop or container_status, so an agent must infer that from the names alone.

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 prerequisite "Requires confirm:true" is stated explicitly, which is genuinely useful gating information. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over container_status or container_update, nor any exclusion such as behavior when the container is already running.

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