compose_unpause

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with unpausing (a mutating but non-destructive action). The description adds the return format (dict with fields) and mentions 'resumes paused processes', but lacks details on behavior when containers are already running or not paused, or error conditions. With annotations present, the description adds some value but could be more thorough.

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?

Very concise: one sentence for purpose and a bullet list for parameters. Front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence is necessary and adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity (no output schema, 4 optional params), the description covers the main purpose and parameter usage well. It could add edge cases (e.g., what happens if no containers are paused) but is largely complete for typical use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations for all 4 parameters: services (restrict to specific services, default all), project_dir (default server cwd), files (repeatable, -f flag), project_name (override). It also includes default values. This adds significant value over 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 clearly states the tool unpauses containers of a compose project (resumes paused processes), specifying the verb 'unpause' and resource 'containers of a compose project'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compose_pause (which pauses) and compose_start (which starts containers).

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 implies usage when containers are paused, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compose_start (for stopped containers) or compose_restart. No exclusions or guidance on prerequisites or context are provided.

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