compose_start

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral details: it starts containers without recreating them, includes a subprocess timeout default of 600 seconds, and describes the return format. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with two paragraphs: the first clearly states purpose and usage, the second lists parameters and return value. It is front-loaded with the most important information, though a more structured list might improve scannability.

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 complexity of the tool (starting specific services in a compose project), the description covers purpose, parameter details, return format, and behavior. No output schema exists, but the return value is described. The description is fully adequate for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description provides explanations for all 5 parameters: project_dir (default server cwd), files (repeatable, -f), project_name (override), services (default all), timeout_seconds (default 600s). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 it starts existing stopped containers of a compose project, and explicitly distinguishes from compose_stop and compose_up by noting it does not recreate containers. This provides specific verb+resource+scope with sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to start existing stopped containers) and when to use alternatives: 'Use compose_up to (re)create containers from the compose file.' It also specifies the counterpart relationship to compose_stop, providing clear context for selection.

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