docker_compose_ps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only says 'Show Docker Compose services.' This lacks information such as whether it requires a Compose file, works in the current directory, shows running vs. all services, or if it has side effects. The description does not add any behavioral context beyond a vague verb.

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 extremely concise at 4 words, with no wasted text. It is front-loaded with the verb. However, it may be under-specified for a tool with many siblings and no annotations, bordering on too brief. A bit more context would improve understandability without becoming verbose.

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 an output schema, the return format is likely specified elsewhere. However, with 20+ sibling tools, zero annotations, and no usage guidance, the description should provide more context (e.g., dependencies, scope, typical use). The description is insufficient for an agent to reliably select and invoke this tool.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there is nothing to describe). The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it appropriately omits parameter details. However, it could note that no parameters are required, which is implicit. Baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description meets it.

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 services.' provides a verb ('Show') and a resource ('Docker Compose services'), but it is ambiguous whether it lists services in a project or shows their status. It does not distinguish clearly from sibling tool 'docker_compose_config', which likely shows configuration, or 'docker_ps', which shows running containers. The purpose is clear enough but lacks specificity (e.g., 'List status of services in a Docker Compose project').

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. For example, it does not say to use this for viewing service state vs. 'docker_ps' for container state, or 'docker_compose_logs' for logs. There is no 'when not to use' or context for its applicability.

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