compose_top

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency by describing output format (ps-style table, not JSON, read from stdout) and return dict. No 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?

Every sentence adds value: purpose, output format, parameter list, return dict. Front-loaded and no fluff. Efficiently structured.

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?

Covers essential info: purpose, output, parameters, returns. Lacks explicit comparison to sibling compose tools or prerequisite conditions (e.g., project must exist), but overall sufficient.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: services (restrict, default all), project_dir (default server cwd), files (explicit paths, repeatable), project_name (override). Provides defaults but lacks format details for files.

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's purpose: 'Show the running processes of a compose project's containers.' It uses a specific verb (show) and resource (compose project's containers), and distinguishes from sibling tools like compose_ps (container status) and container_top (single container processes) by mentioning per-service process table.

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 usage for viewing processes of compose containers but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It could guide the agent to prefer this over compose_ps or container_top but does not.

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