docker_compose_logs

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

The description implies a non-destructive read operation ('Show'), but with no annotations present, the burden is on the description to disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination, truncation, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The output schema exists but the description doesn't reference it.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the core action. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning its place.

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 tool has 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not clarify that logs come from a Docker Compose project, that tail defaults to 100 lines, or what the output format is. The agent lacks sufficient context to 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'service' parameter (optional, filters to one service) but provides no information about the 'tail' parameter (number of lines). This is insufficient for both parameters.

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 'Show Docker Compose logs, optionally for one service' clearly states the verb (Show), resource (Docker Compose logs), and optional filtering by service. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docker_logs (individual container logs) and docker_compose_ps (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 use this tool versus alternatives such as docker_logs or docker_compose_ps. There is no mention of when not to use it or which scenarios it is best suited for.

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