compose_unpause

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: processes continue from frozen state (no restart), the tool does not raise on non-zero CLI exit, and project_dir may be copied to the target host when no local plugin is present. It does not cover permissions or side effects, but with sparse annotations this is solid. No contradiction with 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 highly efficient: a one-sentence purpose, two clarifying distinctions, a note on exit behavior, and a compact parameter list. Each sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information. No 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?

For a compose operation with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, semantics, param meanings, and return value structure. It also gives operational guidance about exit codes. The only minor omission is prerequisite conditions (e.g., project must be paused), but that is strongly implied by the name and reverse statement.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description carries full burden. It explains all four parameters: services (restrict, default all), project_dir (default server cwd, copied to target if no local plugin), files (explicit compose paths, repeatable -f), and project_name (override). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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: 'Unpause the containers of a compose project', and further clarifies semantics by stating it resumes paused processes. It explicitly contrasts with compose_pause (reverse) and compose_start (counterpart for stopped containers), which distinguishes it clearly from sibling 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?

Provides explicit usage context: use to resume paused processes, not to start stopped ones (compose_start is for that). Mentions the reverse relationship with compose_pause and gives guidance on handling non-zero CLI exits by inspecting returncode/stderr, which helps the agent know how to interpret results.

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