compose_ps

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context: returns dict with 'services' and 'raw'; on non-zero exit, 'services' is empty and caller should inspect stderr. This goes beyond annotations by detailing return shape and error handling.

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?

Two sentences establish purpose and return type, followed by succinct bullet-point parameter descriptions. Every sentence is essential; no wasted words. Front-loaded with main action.

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 tool's simplicity (read-only list with five optional params), the description covers purpose, parameters, return value shape, and error behavior. No output schema exists, but the description explains what is returned. Annotations provide safety context, completing the picture.

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%, so the description fully compensates by listing each parameter with a brief, clear explanation. For example, 'project_dir - Dir with the compose file (default: server cwd)' and 'files - Explicit compose file paths (repeatable, `-f`)'. This adds meaning beyond the bare 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 'List containers in a compose project' with the specific verb 'List' and resource 'containers in a compose project'. It adds parsing from '--format json', distinguishing it from generic list_containers and other compose_* tools.

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 implies use for compose projects but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_containers or other compose_* tools. No 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations.

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