compose_images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it raises RuntimeError on CLI failure and describes the return format (list of dicts with service, container, etc.), providing behavioral context beyond 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 concise and well-structured, with a clear initial sentence followed by usage notes and an args section. It is efficient, though could be slightly more streamlined.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return type (list of dicts with fields). It covers prerequisites, error behavior, and parameters. Minor gaps like no example, but adequate for a listing tool.

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 listing parameters with brief explanations (e.g., project_dir default server cwd, files repeatable, project_name override, services restrict to). 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 that the tool lists images used by a compose project's services, parsed from JSON format. It explicitly answers the question of what image and tag each service container runs, distinguishing it from siblings like compose_ps and image_list.

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 explicit guidance: containers must exist (compose_up/compose_create first), suggests using compose_ps for container state and image_list for daemon-wide images, and mentions error handling. This clearly indicates when to use and alternatives.

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