A Compose project's logs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful default of 200 lines per service and the per-service fan-out behavior, but says nothing about truncation limits, whether stopped services are included, or whether output is interleaved/ordered.

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 sentence, zero filler, with the resource and the default behavior front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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-shape explanation is not required, and the safety profile comes from annotations. Still, for a 4-parameter tool at 50% schema coverage, the description leaves the tail and service parameters under-explained and omits prerequisites such as the project needing to be up.

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 only 50%: folder and file are documented in the schema, while tail and service carry no description there. The description partially compensates by stating the 200-per-service default and hinting at single-service selection, but never explains what tail does or that it caps at 5000, nor gives service-name syntax.

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 resource ('a Compose project's services') and scope ('or one' service), and implies retrieval of the last N log lines. It is distinguishable from container_logs at a glance because it is project-scoped rather than container-scoped, though it never names that sibling to sharpen the distinction.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to prefer compose_logs over container_logs or lab_logs for a given situation; the only hints are implicit in the resource wording.

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