compose_up

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: runs detached, subprocess timeout, return format with truncation flag. No contradictions.

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 well-structured: a brief summary upfront, then a clean list of parameters. Each sentence adds value; no wasted words. Front-loads key behavior (detached) and alternatives.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input semantics thoroughly, explains return format (dict with fields), and mentions default behaviors and subprocess timeout. It is complete for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear, concise explanations for all 10 parameters, including defaults and behavior (e.g., build, pull, wait, timeout_seconds with default 600). Adds meaning well beyond the 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 states the tool brings up a Docker Compose project detached, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like compose_start and compose_build by emphasizing detached mode and referencing compose_ps for confirmation.

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?

Explicitly mentions when to use (bring up compose project, always detached) and provides alternatives (use compose_ps to confirm, use wait=True to block). Could be improved by stating when not to use, but the guidance is clear.

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