list_compose_stacks

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context: it is a '[READ]', it derives stacks from a specific label, it works across docker/podman targets, and it defines the rollup semantics (healthy=all running, degraded=some, down=none). That is useful disclosure beyond the annotation.

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 core action, then mechanism, then args; no filler sentences. Slightly loose formatting (trailing newline, inline Args block) but every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining what comes back (per-stack health rollup with three states) and covers the single optional parameter. Adequate for a read-only listing tool, though it omits any mention of pagination or ordering.

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 0% (the 'target' property has only a type and default), so the description must compensate, and it does: 'Target name from config; omit for the default' explains both the value source and the default behavior, which the schema does not.

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 ('Group containers into Compose projects') plus the distinguishing mechanism: reconstruction from the 'com.docker.compose.project' label over the Docker-compat layer. The '(no Portainer needed)' note implicitly separates it from the Portainer-based list_stacks sibling, though it never names that sibling.

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 or alternatives are given. The closest thing is the remark that it targets docker OR podman without Portainer, but that is a capability statement, not routing guidance against list_stacks or stack_detail.

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