compose_ps

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 critical behavior beyond that: 'Does not raise on a non-zero CLI exit: services comes back empty — inspect raw.stderr.' It also explains the return format and that output is parsed from `--format json`, giving the agent a full picture of what to expect.

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 highly efficient: one sentence for purpose, one for differentiation, one for error behavior, then a concise args list and return type. Nothing is redundant; it front-loads the essential purpose and immediately distinguishes from siblings, making it easy to parse.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the return dict, the error behavior (empty services, inspect raw.stderr), and parameter defaults. It covers all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 fully with an 'args' section that explains every parameter (project_dir, files, project_name, services, all). Each has a clear meaning and default, e.g., 'project_dir - Dir with the compose file (default: server cwd; copied to the target host if no local plugin)'. This provides complete semantic coverage.

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 and resource: 'List containers in a compose project, parsed from `--format json`.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'compose_list enumerates projects, and container_list covers non-compose containers.' This is a precise, unambiguous purpose.

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 names alternatives and when they apply: 'compose_list enumerates projects, and container_list covers non-compose containers.' It also provides behavioral guidance for error handling ('Does not raise on a non-zero CLI exit... inspect raw.stderr'), which helps the agent know when and how to use the tool.

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