compose_port

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, detailing the return structure and explaining that 'published' is None when the port isn't published. It aligns with the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, confirming it's a read-only operation without contradictions.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a detailed args block and return specification. While slightly verbose for a simple tool, the information is front-loaded and each line adds value, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the 7 parameters and no output schema, the description comprehensively explains the return value dict with all fields (published, host, port, bindings) and distinguishes first binding from all bindings. It also covers parameter defaults and typical usage, leaving no gaps.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by listing all 7 parameters with clear explanations, including defaults and usage notes (e.g., protocol defaults to 'tcp', index defaults to 1). This provides essential meaning absent from the 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?

The description clearly states the tool resolves host bindings for a service's container port, analogous to 'docker port'. It specifies that it reveals which host address/port a private port is published on, distinguishing it from other compose commands like compose_up or compose_build by its specific query function.

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?

The description provides clear context for use, explaining it's the compose equivalent of 'docker port' and describing the published field behavior. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among sibling tools, though the purpose is sufficiently distinct.

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