compose_images

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `destructiveHint: false`, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details like raising RuntimeError on CLI failure and the nuance that `project_dir` may be copied to the target host if no local plugin. It does not contradict 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, args, returns). Every sentence adds value, though the 'Answers...' sentence slightly overlaps with the first line. It remains compact given the parameter details and contextual notes.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema param coverage, the description fully specifies parameters, return values, error behavior, and prerequisites. It also references related tools and edge cases (e.g., container existence, plugin copy behavior), making it complete for a read-only 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by documenting all four parameters with meaningful explanations: `project_dir` (default and copy behavior), `files` (repeatable `-f`), `project_name` (override), and `services` (restrict/default). It also explains the return format, making the parameters and output fully understandable.

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 lists compose project service images, parsed via `--format json`. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the exact question it answers ('what image and tag does each service container actually run?') and contrasts with `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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: when to use (to get actual image/tag per container), prerequisites (containers must exist via `compose_up`/`compose_create`), and alternatives (`compose_ps` for state, `image_list` for daemon-wide). This covers both when and when-not.

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