start_compose

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

With no annotations and a two-word description, there is zero disclosure of behavior: not whether the start is synchronous or async, what happens if the project is already running, what side effects occur, or what the call returns.

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?

It is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise; two words convey no actionable information beyond what the tool name already shows.

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?

A mutating lifecycle operation on a compose project with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter. The description supplies none of the context an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% and the single parameter is a bare untyped-in-meaning number named "id". The description does not say whether this id is a compose project id, name, or index, leaving the only required parameter completely unexplained.

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?

"Start compose" restates the tool name with a bare verb+noun and adds nothing about what a compose is or what starting one entails. An agent cannot distinguish it confidently from restart_compose, stop_compose, or test_compose beyond the literal verb.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling operations (stop_compose, restart_compose, create_compose) that could be confused with it. The only implicit signal is that an existing compose project referenced by id is required.

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