compose_start

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds crucial behavioral context by noting it starts containers 'without recreating them' and that project_dir is 'copied to the target host if no local plugin.' It also documents the return dict, providing transparency beyond the 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 compact and well-structured: one sentence for purpose, one for usage boundaries, and a terse arg/returns list. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is easy to scan.

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's moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, alternatives, all parameter semantics, and the return structure. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke compose_start correctly without needing external docs.

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 fully compensates by explaining all five parameters with defaults and semantics, e.g., 'project_dir (default: server cwd; copied to the target host if no local plugin)' and 'timeout_seconds (default 600s).' This adds meaning far beyond 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 a clear statement of action and object: 'Start existing (stopped) containers of a compose project.' It explicitly contrasts with compose_stop and compose_up, making its unique scope immediately apparent and distinguishing it from siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Counterpart to compose_stop' and 'Use compose_up to (re)create containers from the compose file.' This gives direct, actionable guidance on tool selection.

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