inspect_compose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It indicates the tool returns configuration data but does not explicitly state it is read-only or describe potential errors. The description gives moderate transparency but lacks full disclosure of behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first describes what the tool returns, the second tells when to use it. No unnecessary words, effectively front-loaded.

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 simple read tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It lists the return components and provides usage guidance. Minor improvement would be to hint at the structure of the response, but not necessary.

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 coverage is 100% and descriptions in the schema are clear ('Nome do projeto', 'Nome do serviço compose'). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 returns the configuration of a Docker Compose service, specifying the components (compose file, env, source, state). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like inspect_service or get_env_vars through the specific focus on Docker Compose services.

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?

Explicitly advises using the tool before any changes ('Use antes de qualquer alteração.'), providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when to avoid using it or suggest alternatives for specific information needs.

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