compose_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral details such as raising RuntimeError on CLI failure and returning parsed JSON dicts per project. It also clarifies the 'all' parameter includes stopped projects, going beyond the bare schema.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each line adds necessary information: purpose, scope, alternative, error behavior, parameter meaning, and return format, with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, how the output is parsed, the effect of the only parameter, error behavior, and how it relates to sibling tools, leaving no significant gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains the only parameter 'all' as 'Include stopped projects.' It also documents the return format ('list - One dict per project'), which compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and output 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 the tool lists compose projects known to the daemon across all directories, specifying a project-level view with one entry per project. It distinguishes itself from compose_ps, which lists containers of a single project.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (listing projects at the project level) and explicitly references compose_ps as the alternative for viewing containers of a single project. It does not list extensive exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple listing tool.

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