Stop container

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

The description discloses the two-step termination process and the no-op behavior. With no annotations, this provides adequate transparency about side effects (stopping processes, eventual kill). However, it does not specify whether the timeout is a hard wait or if the call returns before the grace period ends.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action and method; the second covers idempotency. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (stop a container, two parameters), the description is largely complete. It lacks explicit mention of error conditions (e.g., container not found) or return behavior, but these are often inferred. No output schema needed.

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 coverage is 100%. The description adds context by linking 'grace period' to the timeout parameter, enhancing understanding beyond the schema's default value. The container parameter is self-explanatory from its name and schema.

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 specifies the action (stop a container), the method (SIGTERM then SIGKILL after a grace period), and idempotency (no-op if already stopped). It distinguishes from siblings like restart_container or remove_container.

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 implies when to use (to stop a container gracefully) and notes safe reuse via no-op. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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