compose_up

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

The description discloses that it always runs detached and explains why ('so it can't block the server'). It also reveals path handling ('paths verbatim, no shell expansion') and what the `wait` parameter adds. Since annotations only provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, this extra context is valuable and does not contradict the 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 well-structured with a brief preface followed by a clear parameter list and return type. Every sentence adds value; the only minor redundancy is stating 'detached' twice, but it is reinforcing. For 10 parameters, the length is appropriate and not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description explicitly specifies the return dict format. With 10 parameters and zero schema descriptions, it provides comprehensive semantics and usage notes. The context signals indicate high complexity and low structured metadata, and the description addresses all of it effectively.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting all 10 parameters with meaningful details: defaults (e.g., timeout_seconds default 600), enumerated values (pull strategy options), and effects (e.g., remove_orphans). This is a textbook example of the description carrying the parameter semantic burden.

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 clear and specific verb+resource: 'Bring up a Docker Compose project, detached.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compose_down, compose_ps, and compose_build. The additional note about using compose_ps to confirm services further clarifies its unique role.

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 says 'Use `compose_ps` to confirm services are running, or `wait=True` to block until they're healthy,' giving clear follow-up guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for one-off commands use compose_run), so it lacks full exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a 4.

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