container_stop

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: a 120-second stop timeout, a refusal condition tied to running jobs, the force override, and a confirm gate. It omits what the container's resulting state is and whether the operation is graceful versus forced at the Docker level, but the critical safety-relevant refusal logic is present.

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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the operation and target, then the blocking condition, then the gate requirement. No filler, and every clause adds information an agent needs before invoking.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool with zero annotations, the description covers the target, timeout, failure mode, override, and confirm requirement — enough to call it correctly. Only the post-condition (resulting container state) and return shape are left implicit, which is minor.

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 coverage is only 50% (force has no schema description), and the description compensates by explaining that force is the override for the running-job refusal and that confirm must be true. Both parameters therefore gain meaning beyond the schema, though the exact semantics of force on the timeout/graceful-shutdown path is not spelled out.

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?

States a specific verb (stop) and a specific target (the P5 container) plus the effective command semantics ('docker stop -t 120'), which tells an agent exactly what operation occurs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like stop_job or pack_stop, but the resource is named concretely enough to be unambiguous.

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?

Gives a real precondition and exclusion: the stop is 'Refused while a job runs unless force', which tells the agent when the call will fail and how to override it. It also states the confirm gate. What it lacks is any routing guidance to alternatives (e.g., job_cancel for jobs, container_start for the inverse), so an agent must infer that this is the container-level stop rather than the job-level one.

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