compose_top

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context: output is ps-style per service, not JSON, and should be read from stdout. It also specifies the return dict structure. No contradictions.

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: it front-loads the purpose and output format in the first sentence, then lists parameters in a clear args block. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers output format, return dict, and parameter details. It could mention error handling or that it wraps `docker compose top`, but current detail is adequate.

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 lists all four parameters with brief but meaningful explanations (defaults, usage hints like `-f`). This compensates for the schema's lack of description, though some parameter details (e.g., file path formats) could be expanded.

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 shows running processes of compose project containers, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like compose_ps and container_top by specifying the scope (compose project) and output format (ps-style table per service, not JSON).

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 implies usage for displaying process-level information from compose containers, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like compose_ps or container_top. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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