compose_restart

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it does not recreate containers or apply config changes, it stops then starts services, and it describes the SIGTERM/SIGKILL grace period controlled by stop_timeout_seconds. It also explains the project_dir behavior when no local plugin is present. The return dict is specified, which is valuable since there is no output schema. No contradiction 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 appropriately sized and well-structured. It starts with a clear one-sentence summary, then usage guidance, then an alternative, followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 has six optional parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the exact operation, when to use it, alternatives, all parameter semantics, the return format, and important behavior like SIGKILL and file copying. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further documentation.

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 schema has zero descriptions for parameters, but the description provides a complete arg list with meaningful explanations for all six parameters: project_dir, files, project_name, services, stop_timeout_seconds, and timeout_seconds. This fully compensates for the absent schema descriptions and adds context like defaults and repeatability.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Stop then start services without recreating containers or applying config changes.' This clearly distinguishes compose_restart from compose_up, which handles config changes, by explicitly naming the alternative. The purpose is unambiguous and strongly scoped.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to bounce a service (e.g. to pick up a runtime file change or clear an in-memory state).' It also gives a clear when-not-to-use direction: 'If the compose file has changed (new image, environment, volumes, ports) use compose_up instead.' This directly addresses alternatives and exclusion criteria.

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