compose_port

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: 'published is None when the port isn't published', 'Raises RuntimeError if the CLI call fails', and explains the return semantics in detail. This adds substantial value 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 well-structured with a lead sentence, context, args list, and returns section. Every sentence carries meaning—no fluff, no redundancy. It is detailed but appropriately sized for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema.

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 the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema, no parameter descriptions in schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters, return format, error behavior, edge cases, and even relationship to sibling tools.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description includes a complete args section explaining each of the 7 parameters, including defaults, semantics, and nuances like 'copied to the target host if no local plugin'. This fully compensates for 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Resolve the host binding for a service's container port.' It clearly distinguishes itself from container_inspect by explicitly stating the alternative for non-compose containers, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'The compose equivalent of docker port' and directly tells the agent to use container_inspect for non-compose containers. This gives clear context and an alternative, leaving no doubt about the appropriate use case.

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