create_compose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the creation action and subsequent steps, but lacks details on idempotency (whether it overwrites or fails on duplicates), prerequisites (project existence), or permission requirements. The description is adequate for a simple creation tool but not comprehensive.

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 consists of two sentences—first stating the purpose, second providing follow-up actions. It is front-loaded and succinct, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with two required string parameters and no output schema, the description explains what it does and what to do next, which is largely complete. However, it lacks mention of return values or error conditions, and does not specify that the project must exist. Still, it sufficiently guides the agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description adds context about the purpose of the service (Docker Compose) but does not provide additional semantic meaning for 'projectName' or 'serviceName' beyond their names. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Cria' (creates) and the resource 'serviço do tipo Docker Compose' (Docker Compose service), specifying the scope 'em um projeto' (in a project). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'create_service' by specifying the Docker Compose type.

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 provides clear context on the sequential steps after creation: use 'set_compose_file' (via trpc_raw) or the panel to define the docker-compose, then 'deploy_compose' to deploy. It implies the tool is for setting up a Docker Compose service, but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like 'create_service' or state when not to use it.

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