Docker Compose Build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait: it is a write operation ('写操作') and it creates containers (equivalent to 'compose up -d'). It does not address permissions/auth requirements, idempotency, or effects on already-existing containers, but the core mutation semantics are clear.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and scoping, followed by the disambiguation against the sibling. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, write nature, and sibling distinction, which is sufficient to invoke correctly; only auth/permission and error-recovery context are absent, which is a minor gap.

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 100% (host, port, scheme, profile, project_name all documented), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('拉起 Compose 项目容器'), identifies it as composeBuild equivalent to 'compose up -d', and explicitly contrasts it with the sibling docker_compose_start. An agent can distinguish it from docker_compose_create/start/stop without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('新登记的项目必须先 build 才有容器') and names the alternative plus its limitation ('composeStart 只对已 build 过的项目生效，它仅执行 docker compose start，不创建容器'). This routes the agent correctly between build and start.

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