stellar_container_start

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 discloses which components are launched (node, RPC, API, faucet), which is genuine context, but says nothing about it being a long-running process, required Docker availability, port binding conflicts, resource limits, or whether the call blocks — all material for a container-start operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and the components affected come first. Nothing to trim.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover more of the lifecycle, e.g. that a stopped container is cleaned up via stellar_container_stop or that logs come from stellar_container_logs. The core purpose is covered and defaults live in the schema, but the post-start workflow is left implicit.

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 every one of the 7 parameters is already documented in the schema (including the network enum default of local). The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema supplies, 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?

Specific verb (start) plus resource (container running a Stellar node, RPC, API, friendbot), which immediately distinguishes it from the sibling stellar_container_stop. It doesn't explicitly name the stop tool as its counterpart, but the action direction is 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as stellar_network_use or stellar_network_add for non-container workflows. The agent must infer that this spins up a dockerized local/dev network rather than joining an existing one.

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