compose_start

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

Beyond the sparse annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals key behavioral traits: it only starts existing containers and does not recreate them. It also notes that project_dir is copied to the target host when no local plugin exists, and mentions a default timeout. These details provide important context for safe and correct invocation.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds critical usage relationships, and the 'args' section is a clean, organized list. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence adds value.

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 is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, all parameter semantics, and even describes the return dict structure. Since there is no output schema, the explicit 'returns: dict - {...}' is essential and provided. Combined with the sibling context, this is a fully self-contained description.

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 input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's 'args' section explains every parameter, including defaults, repeatability, and purpose—e.g., 'files - Explicit compose file paths (repeatable, -f)', 'services - Specific services to start (default: all)', and 'timeout_seconds - Subprocess timeout (default 600s)'. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clear, specific action: 'Start existing (stopped) containers of a compose project.' The verb 'start' and resource 'containers of a compose project' are unambiguous. It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly referencing compose_stop and compose_up, making it easy to distinguish from related tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Counterpart to compose_stop: starts existing containers without recreating them. Use compose_up to (re)create containers from the compose file.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, satisfying the 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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