Get Docker Project

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

With no annotations, the description itself must convey behavior. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and identifies the specific content (compose file), which helps. However, it lacks any statement about side effects, permissions, or response format, which would be valuable.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no unnecessary words. It conveys the essence immediately.

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 well-described params, the description is mostly sufficient. It identifies the target resource (compose file) but doesn't explicitly state the return format or error behavior, which would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (vm_id, project_name) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so per the baseline for high schema coverage, this scores 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Docker project contents (compose file)'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like vps_docker_list (listing projects) and vps_docker_containers. The parenthetical clarifies exactly what is retrieved, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The tool's purpose is implied by its name and description, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over vps_docker_list or vps_docker_logs.

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