docker_stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'This changes server state,' which confirms it is a mutation, but provides no details on how the stop is performed (graceful vs. forceful), what signals are sent, whether there are side effects (e.g., detached volumes), or what happens to dependent services. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavioral impact.

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 very short at two sentences, but the second sentence 'This changes server state' is arguably redundant for a stop command and adds no new information. While brevity is valued, here it crosses into underspecification—missing critical details that would justify the space. It is concise but not well-structured because it lacks logical progression (no parameter info, no usage context).

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the parameter, does not mention whether the container must be running, does not specify the stop mechanism or timeout behavior. For a simple tool, this might seem sufficient, but the lack of parameter semantics and safety details makes it incomplete for autonomous use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the single required parameter 'container'. The agent has no way to know if this expects a container name, ID, or partial match. The description adds zero semantic value beyond the schema's bare parameter name.

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 verb 'Stop' and the resource 'a Docker container', making the basic purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like docker_restart (which also stops then starts) or docker_compose_stop, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool over alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use docker_stop versus docker_restart, docker_kill, or docker_compose_down. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., container must be running) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The description is a bare statement of action without usage context.

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