Docker Compose Create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it flags the operation as a write, explains that Compose content is NOT in the request body (a non-obvious behavior), and documents two specific errno codes (0x03200107 parent-already-a-project, 0x03200102 missing compose file) with remediation. This is exactly the kind of context annotations would otherwise provide.

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?

Front-loads the verb+resource, then layers prerequisite, workflow, and error handling in a scannable structure. It is dense and long, but each block (request body, workflow, error codes) carries distinct value, so little is wasted.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the prerequisites, the end-to-end workflow, the auto_build behavior, and the failure modes an agent will hit. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by revealing the real request-body structure ({"auto_build", "file", "folder", "project_name"}) and the constraint that folder must be a clean parent directory. It stops short of explaining host/port/scheme/profile, which the schema already covers.

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 ('登记 Docker Compose 项目' / register a Compose project) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools that follow it in the workflow (docker_compose_build, docker_compose_containers). An agent can identify this as the registration step without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite (the yaml must already be written via file_write_text/file_upload before calling), a numbered typical workflow, and names the alternative steps that this tool does not perform. It also states auto_build=true can merge steps, so when/when-not is fully covered.

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