Docker Compose Stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by labeling this a write operation ('写操作'), naming the underlying call ('composeStop'), and stating the resulting container state (轉 Exited), but it omits idempotency, whether project data/volumes are affected, and any auth or session requirements.

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?

A single sentence with the verb+resource front-loaded and the behavioral cues parenthesized afterward. Zero 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 no explanation, and all five parameters are documented in the schema. The description supplies the mutation semantics and end state; only cross-tool routing and permission expectations are missing.

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 does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline 3.

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+resource: '停止 Compose 项目' (stop Compose project), which is unambiguous against siblings like docker_compose_start, docker_compose_create, and docker_compose_delete. It does not explicitly name those siblings or contrast itself with them, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Nothing indicates when to use this rather than docker_compose_delete (which also halts containers) or docker_compose_start. There is no prerequisite, exclusion, or alternative-selection condition; usage is only inferable from the tool name itself.

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