Start container

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action 'start', such as whether starting a running container is a no-op or error, or what the response looks like.

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, concise sentence without fluff. It is efficient but could be improved with a brief structure (e.g., prerequisites, behavior) without sacrificing conciseness.

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 two required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but barely adequate. It lacks context about state requirements, return values, or error conditions, which are partially compensated by the annotations 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?

The description contains no parameter information, and schema description coverage is 0%. While parameter names ('node', 'vmid') are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not confirm their meaning or format, leaving ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 'Start an LXC container' uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('LXC container'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like 'stop_container', 'restart_container', and 'start_vm'. It directly states what the tool does.

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 this tool versus alternatives (e.g., restart, shutdown). The description does not indicate prerequisites such as the container needing to be in a stopped state, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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