compose_restart

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

The description adds key behavioral context beyond annotations: no container recreation, no config application, and the SIGTERM/SIGKILL behavior controlled by stop_timeout_seconds. It also mentions that project_dir is copied to the target host if no local plugin. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects.

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-organized: it leads with the core purpose and usage guidance, then lists parameter semantics, and finally the return type. It is concise while containing all necessary details—no filler or 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?

The description covers every aspect needed for tool selection and invocation: clear purpose, usage context, explicit alternative, all parameter meanings, a behavioral nuance (timeout), and the return dict structure. It is a complete standalone reference despite the lack of an output schema.

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?

Even though the schema has 0% description coverage, the description manually documents all six parameters with explanations and defaults (e.g., 'services - Restart only these services; omit to restart all', 'timeout_seconds - Subprocess timeout (default 300s)'). This fully compensates for the bare 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 opens with 'Stop then start services without recreating containers or applying config changes' – a specific verb+resource combo. It also distinguishes from sibling compose_up by explicitly stating that compose_up recreates containers, making the tool's uniqueness clear.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to bounce a service (e.g., to pick up a runtime file change or clear an in-memory state).' It also names the alternative tool and the condition for choosing it: 'If the compose file has changed... use compose_up instead.'

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