compose_pull

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

Discloses that it avoids starting containers, mentions timeout default (1800s), ignore_pull_failures behavior, and return dict shape. Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), and description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Concise and well-structured: one-sentence purpose, usage scenarios, prerequisite, alternative note, then clear parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, no redundancy.

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?

Complete for a 6-parameter tool with no output schema. Covers when to use, prerequisites, parameter details, and return value shape. No gaps given the annotations and sibling context.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all six parameters with their meanings, defaults, and usage (e.g., files repeatable, services for subset, ignore_pull_failures for error handling). This adds significant value over the raw 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 pre-fetches images for a compose project without starting them, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from compose_up by noting that compose_up --pull always does the same as part of startup, clarifying the separate use case.

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 explicit use cases: staging before outage windows, refreshing before compose_up, verifying accessibility. Also gives alternative when to use compose_up instead and prerequisite about system_login for authenticated pulls.

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