compose_stop

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds value by specifying exactly what happens: containers are not removed, and state survives so compose_start can restore them. It also notes that stop_timeout_seconds is passed as `--timeout`, disclosing a key behavior. It does not mention side effects like process termination inside containers, but that is implied by 'stop services' and the non-destructive guarantee.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and the key differentiator from compose_down. The args section is structured and includes defaults/explanations. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 six parameters, zero schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides everything needed to invoke the tool: it lists all parameters, their defaults, and the return dict shape (returncode, stdout, stderr, truncated). This is sufficient for an agent to select and call compose_stop correctly.

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 carries parameter semantics. It explains all six parameters: project_dir (default and host copying if no local plugin), files (repeatable -f), project_name (override), services (default all), stop_timeout_seconds (grace period), and timeout_seconds (subprocess default 300s). This is complete and actionable.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Stop services in a compose project without removing their containers.' This precisely distinguishes compose_stop from its siblings, particularly compose_down and compose_start. The scope is clear: it stops services but preserves containers/networks/volumes.

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 contrasts with compose_down: 'Unlike compose_down, containers/networks/volumes survive — use compose_start to bring them back.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool (when persistence of infrastructure is desired) and points to the sibling for the reverse operation. The parameter defaults and the fact that services defaults to 'all' further clarify usage context.

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