Docker Compose Ls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. The verb '列出' implies a safe read, but no explicit behavioral context is given.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the tool's purpose, which is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents the four optional parameters. However, with no annotations, the description should compensate by disclosing read-only behavior, authentication needs, or when to use this tool versus siblings, none of which it does. It is adequate for purpose but leaves clear behavioral and usage gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters (host, port, scheme, profile), so the schema already documents their meanings. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 states a specific verb ('列出') and resource ('Docker Compose 项目'), making the operation clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools like docker_compose_create, docker_compose_start, and docker_compose_stop by being the list variant, though it does not explicitly name any sibling for differentiation.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention alternatives such as docker_compose_containers. However, the purpose statement implies the tool is used to enumerate Docker Compose projects, which is the minimum viable context for a simple list tool.

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