compose_up

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

Description goes beyond annotations by detailing that it always runs detached, cannot block the server, includes a timeout, and returns a specific dict. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent and the description adds significant behavioral context.

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 intro, a key behavioral note, and a parameter list. It is front-loaded but slightly lengthy due to verbose parameter explanations; still understandable and focused.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers return value structure and parameter usage well. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., existing Compose file) and explicit confirmation of required Docker context. Annotations are minimal but adequate.

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 0% description coverage, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 10 parameters, including defaults, allowed values (e.g., pull strategy), and behavioral notes like 'paths verbatim, no shell expansion'. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Bring up a Docker Compose project, detached,' using a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like compose_start, compose_run, etc., as the primary command for starting a Compose project.

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?

Description explains that the tool always runs detached and cannot block, and suggests using compose_ps for verification or wait=True for blocking. It provides guidance on when to use alternatives implicitly, though lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements.

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