docker_compose_down

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

The description says 'remove services', which provides some detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying what is affected. However, it does not add context about the volumes parameter's default behavior, potential idempotency (which is hinted by the annotation but not explained), or additional effects like removing networks. It is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the core action. There is no redundant or filler content; every word 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?

For a destructive tool with a barely documented parameter and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the project_dir parameter, the default cleanup scope, or what 'services' entails in terms of containers/disks/networks. The agent would need to look at sibling tools or infer a lot.

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 coverage is 50%: volumes has a description, but project_dir has none. The description does not mention project_dir at all, leaving its meaning ambiguous. It adds no value beyond the schema for volumes, and fails to compensate for the undocumented project_dir 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs ('Stop and remove') and resource ('Docker Compose services'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docker_compose_up (which starts services) and individual container commands such as stop_container or remove_container.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the presence of docker_compose_up as a sibling: this is the inverse operation. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, such as when to use stop_container for individual containers or the compose-specific scope. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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