Docker Compose Start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does label the operation as a write ('写操作') and identifies the exact underlying command ('仅执行 docker compose start'). It stops short of describing permissions, what happens if the project is already running, or reversibility, which are meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the purpose and the precondition before the alternative. Every clause earns its place.

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, and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description covers purpose, write nature and preconditions, leaving only marginal behavioral detail (e.g. already-running behavior) uncovered.

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%, so the schema already documents host, port, scheme, profile and project_name; the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (start) and resource (an already-built Compose project), and explicitly names the sibling it is not for unbuilt projects (docker_compose_build). An agent can distinguish it from docker_compose_build/create/stop without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('项目必须先 composeBuild 过') and an explicit alternative for the excluded case ('未 build 的项目请用 docker_compose_build'). This is textbook when-to-use / when-not guidance.

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