audit_compose

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists specific checks (e.g., privileged mode, root user) and states return format (score 0-100, categorized issues). It does not mention side effects, but the tool is read-only. The description adds value beyond schema by detailing what the tool evaluates.

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 concise (two sentences) yet packed with useful information: what it does, what it checks, and what it returns. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (single-parameter tool with no output schema), the description fully explains inputs and outputs. It lists 10 checks and the output format (score and issues). The agent has enough context to decide and use the tool correctly.

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 has one required parameter 'compose_yaml' with a description. The tool description adds 'The full content of your docker-compose.yml file to audit' which reinforces that it expects the entire file. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description provides marginal additional meaning but is sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool audits Docker Compose YAML strings for security vulnerabilities and best-practice violations. The verb 'audit' and resource 'Docker Compose YAML string' are specific. Sibling tools like generate_dockerfile and list_stacks indicate different purposes, making this tool's role distinct.

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 implicitly indicates usage: when you have a compose YAML to check. It lists detailed checks and returns a score and issues. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with siblings (e.g., use generate_dockerfile to create Dockerfiles). This is a minor gap.

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