clean_compose_log

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, and it says almost nothing. It does not state whether logs are deleted permanently or truncated, whether the compose must be stopped first, whether permissions are required, or what is returned. 'Clean' hints at destructive removal but confirms nothing.

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 short phrase with zero padding and nothing trailing, so it is maximally brief and front-loaded. But brevity here stems from under-specification rather than disciplined editing, so it does not earn above mid-range.

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 mutating maintenance tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the definition is far too thin. Only the tool name supplies context; nothing about effects, safety, or return behavior is present.

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 single parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema offers no meaning, and the description adds none. It is not stated whether 'id' is a compose ID, an app ID, or a log ID, nor what happens on an invalid value. With one undocumented required parameter, the description fails to compensate.

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 phrase 'Clean compose log' does identify a verb and a resource, so an agent can infer it removes/truncates a compose stack's log data. However, it is essentially the tool name de-snake_cased, with no scope, no mention of which compose artifact is affected, and no differentiation from the sibling clean_container_log. Purpose is only vaguely determined.

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 of when to use this tool, what preconditions apply (e.g., the compose must exist), or how it relates to adjacent tools such as clean_container_log. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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