Start container

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a mutation (starts a container), that it is idempotent (no-op if running), and that it returns the resulting state. It does not detail the return format or potential side effects, but for a simple tool this is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: one sentence covering purpose, behavior, and return. Every piece of information is essential and there is no wasted text.

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 one parameter and no output schema or nested objects, the description adequately covers the core behavior. It addresses the no-op case and return value. Minor omissions like error cases or permissions do not significantly detract.

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 covers the single 'container' parameter with a clear description. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Start' and the resource 'container'. It explicitly says it starts a stopped container, and distinguishes behavior from siblings like restart_container by noting it is a no-op if already running.

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 description provides clear usage context: start a stopped container. It also notes that it is a no-op if already running, which guides the agent not to use it redundantly. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it compared to neighboring tools like restart_container.

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