docker_stop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the stop is graceful (SIGTERM) or forced, what happens on an already-stopped container, whether state is preserved, or whether elevated permissions are required. For a mutating lifecycle tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single efficient, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is arguably too terse, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness flaw.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate: it omits behavioral outcome, error conditions, and any routing to related lifecycle tools. An agent knows what it does but not how it behaves or when to choose it.

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 100%, so both parameters (host and container) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (Docker container), scoping to a 'running' container. It is clearly separable from docker_start and docker_restart by name and semantics, though it never explicitly names a sibling or the boundary between stopping vs restarting.

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 phrase 'a running container' weakly implies the operation only applies to running containers, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. No mention of when to prefer this over docker_restart or service_stop.

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