compose_kill

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds key behaviors: it is immediate, does not raise on non-zero CLI exit (inspect returncode/stderr), and provides the return dict shape. This goes beyond the annotation coverage.

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?

Well-structured: one-sentence purpose, followed by a behavior note, then a concise args list, and a returns line. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description includes the return format and the non-raising behavior. It covers all parameter semantics and provides usage guidance, making it complete for a tool of this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a full list of all six parameters with short explanations and defaults, covering services, signal, remove_orphans, project_dir, files, and project_name.

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 'Send a signal to a compose project's containers (default SIGKILL)', which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes from sibling compose_stop by noting it is immediate with no grace period.

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?

Directly says 'prefer compose_stop for a clean shutdown', giving an explicit alternative and the context for when this tool is appropriate (immediate kill).

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