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 useful behavioral context: it states the tool parses CLI output, raises RuntimeError on failure, and copies project_dir to the target host if no local plugin. This goes beyond the annotations but could have elaborated on return edge cases.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a clear paragraph then a labeled args list, and every sentence adds value: purpose, usage prerequisite, alternatives, error behavior, and parameter semantics. It is appropriately sized without fluff.

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 is complete for a read-only list tool: it explains the domain (compose project images), the prerequisite (containers must exist), related tools, all parameters, return format, and error handling. No output schema exists, but the return format is explicitly described, so the agent knows what to expect.

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 fully compensates by detailing each parameter: project_dir, files, project_name, services, including defaults and behavior (e.g., repeatable -f). It also clearly describes the return format, making the tool's inputs and outputs 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 images used by a compose project's services, parsed from --format json. It answers a specific question ('what image and tag does each service container actually run?') and distinguishes itself from siblings like compose_ps and image_list by explicitly naming them as alternatives.

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 when-to-use guidance: it notes containers must exist (via compose_up/compose_create first) and directs users to compose_ps for container state and image_list for daemon-wide images. This clearly differentiates the tool from related alternatives.

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