compose_images

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

Annotations already indicate safe read operation. Description adds that it raises RuntimeError on CLI failure and that it parses from `--format json`. Does not contradict annotations.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and usage notes. Follows a docstring format with args and returns. Could be slightly shorter, but all sentences add value.

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?

No output schema, but description specifies return type (list of dicts with keys: service, container, repository, tag, id, size). Covers error behavior, parameter defaults, and prerequisites. Complete for a listing tool with no required parameters.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description documents each parameter: project_dir (default server cwd), files (repeatable, -f), project_name (override), services (restrict, default all). Adds meaning beyond the empty schema.

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?

Clearly states it lists images used by a compose project's services, parsed from JSON format. Explicitly answers 'what image and tag does each service container actually run?' and distinguishes from compose_ps and image_list.

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?

Provides clear context: containers must exist first (compose_up/compose_create). Suggests using compose_ps for container state and image_list for daemon-wide images. Lists parameters with defaults. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but differentiates well from siblings.

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