Start a Compose project

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it runs whatever the compose file says, including privileged services and host mounts, builds what has a build, and runs in the background. The security/privilege warning is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs and the annotations do not provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the action in the first clause; the second sentence is slightly run-on but every part (privileged services, host mounts, confirm-first) earns its place as safety guidance.

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 described, and the description covers action, behavior, and the safety precondition. It is nearly complete for a tool that executes arbitrary compose files, though it could say more about its relationship to compose_down.

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 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining build behavior ('building what has a build'), the partial-service option ('or only some'), and the compose-file relationship ('its compose file'). It adds meaning over the bare schema but does not fully pin down each parameter.

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 ('a Compose project's services') with scope qualifiers ('in the background', 'or only some'). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like start_container (single container), compose_down, and compose_ps.

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 a strong usage directive: read the compose file first and confirm with the person, naming anything dangerous. This is a clear caution protocol but does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond the danger caveat.

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