run_container

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

The description says 'Run a new container', implying each invocation creates a new resource, which directly contradicts the idempotentHint annotation (true) that claims the operation is idempotent. This is a significant behavioral contradiction, making the description misleading about the tool's actual behavior.

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 with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is nearly a tautology of the tool name and lacks structured detail, so it is not a perfect 5.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, only a contradictory annotation), a one-line description is inadequate. It fails to describe return values, side effects like image pulling or port handling, or how parameters like detach and name affect behavior. The agent is left with an incomplete picture.

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 schema description coverage is only 50%, but the description adds no guidance for the undocumented parameters (name, image, command). The phrase 'from an image' only echoes the required image parameter, offering no additional meaning. The description fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 action (Run) and resource (a new container from an image), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_container (starts an existing container) and remove_container (removes a container). It is specific and 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?

Usage is implied: this tool is for creating and running a new container from an image. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., start_container for existing containers) or mention prerequisites such as the image being available. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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