container_scan_compose

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. 'Scan' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether the tool modifies files, requires network access or an API key, or what kind of results it returns.

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 is concise, though slightly under-specified; the brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and parameter context.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and partial parameter documentation, the description leaves important context missing: return format, whether a valid compose file is required, what the api_key is used for, and how this scan differs from sibling scanning tools. An agent could invoke it, but not confidently predict the result.

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 schema documents file_path but leaves api_key completely unexplained. With schema description coverage at only 50%, the description needed to compensate, but it only echoes 'docker-compose files' and adds no detail about the api_key parameter, path formats, or file requirements.

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 ('Scan'), a clear resource ('docker-compose files'), and the purpose ('security and configuration issues'). It is sufficiently distinct from siblings like iac_scan_terraform or container_audit_dockerfile, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related scan tools, such as iac_scan_docker, container_audit_dockerfile, or container_security_report. The intended invocation context is only implied by the tool name and brief description.

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