compose_down

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: which resources are removed (containers, networks, optionally volumes), that volumes removal is destructive, the handling of orphans, and the subprocess timeout. This fully compensates for the annotation's generality.

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 concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a bullet-style list of arguments with defaults and flags. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently uses space, with no redundant information.

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 (7 parameters, no required, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: parameter semantics, return format (dict with stdout/stderr/returncode/truncated), and the destructive nature of volumes. The agent can confidently invoke this tool without additional lookups.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description provides a clear, complete narrative for all 7 parameters, including defaults and the destructive flag for volumes. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Stop and remove containers, networks (and optionally volumes) for a compose project.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like compose_stop (only stops) and compose_rm (only removes), though those are not explicitly mentioned.

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 (teardown of a compose project) and includes optional flags like volumes and remove_orphans that shape usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives like compose_stop, so it stops short of full guidance.

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