Docker Compose Containers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing via '列出' but says nothing about authentication/session requirements, whether the host/port/profile target a remote NAS, or any failure modes — and it repeats the internal field name 'composeContainers' without explaining it.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, and the scope (Compose project) is front-loaded. The trailing parenthetical '(composeContainers)' is a redundant restatement of the tool name rather than information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema fully documents parameters. What is missing is any behavioral or usage context beyond the bare scope — adequate as a minimum-viable listing tool, but thin for a 5-parameter remote-host tool with no annotations.

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 100%, so all five parameters (host, port, scheme, profile, project_name) are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but it is not required to.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('列出 Compose 项目下的容器'), which is clearly different from docker_containers (all containers) and docker_compose_ls (projects). It does not name either sibling explicitly, so differentiation requires the agent to infer it from the scoping phrase.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus docker_containers, docker_compose_ls, or docker_container_top. The phrase 'Compose 项目下' scopes the tool but is not framed as usage guidance or paired with an alternative, so the agent gets no routing help.

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