gerenciar_docker_monorepo

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does add that the tool automatically ascends to the monorepo root, which is a useful non-obvious behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects of 'up'/'down' or the output/failure behavior.

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?

One compact sentence, verb-first, with the key automatic-root-descending behavior included. It loses a point only because the parenthetical command list is inaccurate and could mislead despite the overall tight structure.

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 a one-parameter tool this is close to adequate, and the schema covers the only parameter. Missing items are the output produced by the command execution and any side effects/prerequisites, especially with no output schema to fill that gap.

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 already gives full parameter semantics via an enum with a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds no value and actually introduces a conflict by mentioning 'ps' while the valid enum is 'status', which could lead an agent to send an invalid value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Executa') and a clear resource ('comandos docker-compose'), and adds the monorepo-root behavior. However, it lists 'ps' where the schema accepts 'status', so the boundary is slightly muddied and the description is not fully aligned.

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 about when to prefer this tool or what alternatives exist. The command list implies common docker-compose operations, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions are given.

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