compose_up

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

The description discloses important behavior: it always runs detached to avoid blocking the server, and explains the optional wait behavior. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false) align with the mutating nature of starting containers. The description adds transparency beyond the annotations by clarifying the detach behavior and how to ensure readiness.

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 succinct and well-structured. It starts with a clear one-liner, then lists parameters in a consistent format without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence adds value, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (10 optional parameters), the description covers all parameters and provides sufficient behavioral context. It also specifies the return format (dict with returncode, stdout, stderr, truncated). However, it does not elaborate on error handling or edge cases, but this is not essential for basic usage.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining each parameter concisely. For example, 'pull' is explained as 'Pull strategy; omit to use each service's own pull_policy', and 'wait' is defined as 'Block until services are healthy'. This provides meaningful semantics for all parameters without relying on the 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's purpose: 'Bring up a Docker Compose project, detached.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compose_start by focusing on bringing up the project and explicitly mentioning the detached mode, which is a key behavioral difference.

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 provides practical usage guidance: it notes that the command always runs detached, suggests using 'compose_ps' to confirm services are running, and mentions the 'wait' parameter to block until healthy. This gives clear context on when and how to use the tool, though it could explicitly contrast with compose_start or compose_run for stronger differentiation.

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