compose_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not re-state the safety profile. It adds the Docker Compose project scope, but it does not disclose whether the result includes service statuses, how the project is resolved, or any other behavioral details beyond the structured annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler: the verb, object, and scope appear immediately. It is easy to scan and every word earns its place, even though other dimensions penalize the omitted details.

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-only tool with rich safety annotations, the one-line description is minimally viable, but it leaves out how the two optional parameters map to a specific compose project and what the returned list contains. Without an output schema, the description should at least clarify the return shape or parameter selection to be fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the difference between `project` and `project_directory` or what values they accept. The property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level guidance.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'services from a Docker Compose project,' so an agent knows exactly what the tool acts on. It is clear and distinct enough by resource type, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_services or get_service_status.

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 no guidance on when to prefer compose_status over sibling tools such as list_services, get_service_status, or list_docker_containers. The 'Docker Compose project' qualifier implies a use case, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing cues.

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