compose_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds that it raises RemoteFailureError on CLI failure, which is useful for error handling, and indicates the output format (parsed from --format json). However, it doesn't detail what happens if the daemon has no projects or how errors beyond RemoteFailure are handled—for a read-only list tool, this is adequate.

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 brief with no fluff: three sentences cover purpose, differentiation, error behavior, and parameter note. Key info is front-loaded with a clear structure (function, comparison, error, parameter). It earns its place.

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 simple list tool: it states what it returns (dict per project), how it behaves (raises error), and how it differs from compose_ps. The single parameter 'all' is explained. No output schema exists, but the Returns section covers it. Minor gap: could mention sorting or ordering, but not essential; scores high but not perfect for a straightforward list operation.

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 adds a brief note for the 'all' parameter: 'Include stopped projects', which directly clarifies its meaning beyond the schema's type/boolean/default. This adds some value, but not extensive detail like default behavior or implications of not setting it. Given the parameter is simple and boolean, this is sufficient.

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 projects known to the daemon across all directories, with a specific 'project-level view' scope. It also distinguishes itself from compose_ps, which lists containers of a single project, clarifying its unique function among sibling tools.

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 explicitly contrasts with compose_ps: use compose_list for project-level visibility, and compose_ps when you need container details of one project. This provides direct guidance on when to use this tool vs. the alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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