compose_config

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful context about merging, profiles, variable substitution, and return format, which goes beyond the 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?

The description is efficient: the first sentence captures the core purpose, followed by a list of parameters and return value. Every line adds value. However, the parameter list is a bit lengthy and could be slightly more concise.

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?

The description covers purpose, all parameters, and return format comprehensively. With no output schema, it explains the dict structure. It is complete for a config rendering tool, though edge cases (e.g., missing compose files) are not addressed.

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 must compensate. It does so by listing each parameter with a brief explanation (e.g., 'project_dir - Dir with the compose file'), adding meaning beyond the raw schema names. However, it could provide more detail on expected values (e.g., path format).

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 renders the canonical compose configuration after merges, profiles, and variable substitution. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like compose_up (deploy) or compose_build (build images).

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 the tool is for inspecting final configuration, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or context for sibling tools are provided.

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