compose_start

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (modifies state) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds that it starts containers without recreating, has a timeout (default 600s), and returns a dict with returncode, stdout, stderr, and truncated flag. This goes beyond annotations to clarify behavior.

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 concise with a clear structure: first sentence states purpose, second sentence provides context with alternatives, then a list of args. It is front-loaded and every part adds value. Minor improvement could be even shorter, but it's well-organized.

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 all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidance, parameter descriptions, return format, and timeout. It differentiates from siblings and provides enough detail for a simple tool. No output schema exists, so the return dict specification completes the picture.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It briefly describes each parameter: project_dir (default server cwd), files (explicit paths, repeatable), project_name (override), services (specific, default all), timeout_seconds (default 600s). This adds meaning, but could be more detailed on valid values or constraints.

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 the tool starts existing stopped containers of a compose project. It uses a specific verb ('start') and resource ('existing containers of a compose project'), and differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming compose_stop as counterpart and compose_up for recreation.

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 tells when to use: for starting existing stopped containers without recreating. It explicitly mentions compose_up as an alternative for recreating and compose_stop as the counterpart. It could be improved by mentioning prerequisites like the compose project must exist and containers must be stopped, but overall provides clear guidance.

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