project_down

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions stopping and removing containers but omits details like whether networks/volumes are affected, if data persists, or if confirmation is needed. Lacks depth for an operation that is likely destructive.

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 brief and front-loaded, but overly terse. A single sentence is adequate, but it could include more context without harming conciseness.

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 destructive nature and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, side effects, or prerequisites (e.g., project must be running). A user would need to consult external documentation.

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%; the description adds no information about any of the three parameters (env_id, project_id, agent_token). No explanation of their meaning or defaults beyond what the schema shows.

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 action (stop and remove containers) and resource (Compose project). It distinguishes from generic 'stop' tools by specifying removal, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_project' or 'stop_all_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'stop_all_containers', 'remove_project', or 'deploy_project'. No prerequisites or context provided.

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