compose_wait

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behaviors: blocking semantics, subprocess timeout with `TimeoutExpired` kill, that exit codes appear on stdout, and that `project_dir` is copied to the target host when no local plugin exists. This adds substantial context not present in the structured 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 structured with an opening line, a behavioral note, a list of arguments, and a return type declaration. It is long enough to cover all necessary details but every section earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 complexity (blocking, timeout, compose project context) and the lack of an output schema, the description fully equips the agent: it explains the return dict shape, timeout behavior, parameter semantics, and when to use sibling tools. No critical gaps remain.

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 'args:' block in the description compensates fully by explaining each of the five parameters — `services`, `project_dir`, `files`, `project_name`, and `timeout_seconds` — including defaults and an explicit 'At least one is required' note. This adds meaning that the schema itself lacks.

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 'Block until the named service containers stop, then return their exit codes' — a specific verb+resource combination that precisely defines the tool's action. It further differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming `container_wait` and `service_wait` as alternatives for other container types, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 direct comparison: 'For a single container use `container_wait`; for swarm services use `service_wait`.' It also characterizes the tool as 'For one-shot / batch services' and warns about long-running services with timeout behavior, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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