compose_start

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are minimal. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it does not raise on non-zero CLI exit, but does raise on missing plugin or timeout, and instructs the agent to inspect returncode/stderr. It also notes that project_dir is copied to the target host if no local plugin. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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: a clear first sentence, a short paragraph distinguishing it from siblings, a note about error behavior, and a bulleted Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, how it behaves on errors, and what each parameter means. It also documents the return dict shape. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe what 'truncated' means in the return value, but that is a small omission given the overall completeness.

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 carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It provides a one-line explanation for each of the five parameters, including defaults (project_dir defaults to server cwd, timeout_seconds defaults to 600s). This is sufficient for an agent to understand what each parameter does, though it doesn't go into deep detail about formats or edge cases.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Start existing (stopped) containers of a compose project.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from compose_stop and compose_up, making it clear what this tool does and does not do. The first sentence is precise and actionable.

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 explicitly names the counterpart (compose_stop) and the alternative (compose_up), and states the condition for choosing each: 'starts existing containers without recreating them' vs 'use compose_up to (re)create containers from the compose file.' This is exactly the kind of when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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