compose_kill

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. Description adds that default signal is SIGKILL, but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., forceful termination, potential data loss). Could be more explicit about the destructive nature beyond the annotation.

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?

Highly concise: one sentence for purpose, then structured args and return format. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the key action.

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?

Covers all 6 parameters with defaults and examples, and includes return dict format (absent output schema). Missing prerequisite info (e.g., compose project must exist and be running), but otherwise sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's args section adds full meaning: defaults for each parameter (e.g., signal default 'SIGKILL'), examples ('SIGTERM', 'SIGHUP'), and context (services default all, remove_orphans behavior). This compensates completely for lack of schema 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 clearly states the tool sends a signal to compose project's containers, with default SIGKILL. It uses specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like kill_container (single container) and compose_stop (graceful).

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like compose_stop or compose_down. Does not mention when not to use it or provide context about graceful vs forceful shutdown.

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