compose_top

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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it outputs to stdout, does not raise on non-zero CLI exit (requiring inspection of returncode/stderr), and it describes the return dictionary structure. It also notes that `project_dir` is copied to the target host if no local plugin. This adds substantial value beyond the 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: it starts with the core purpose, then details output format and error handling, followed by a clean args list and return format. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary wordiness. The front-loaded purpose makes it easy to quickly understand the tool.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, output format, error behavior, parameter semantics, and return structure. It also references a related tool for context. Nothing important is missing.

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%, so the description fully compensates by listing each parameter with a brief explanation: services, project_dir, files, and project_name. This provides essential meaning to the parameters, including defaults and behaviors.

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's purpose: 'Show the running processes of a compose project's containers.' It specifies the output is a `ps`-style process table per service, which distinguishes it from other compose operations. The mention of `container_top` as the per-container equivalent further clarifies its scope.

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 usage context by noting the output format and the alternative `container_top` for per-container use. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over other compose inspection tools like `compose_ps` or `compose_logs`. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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