compose_query

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

No annotations provided, so description shoulders behavioral disclosure. It names three actions and details the 'tail' parameter for logs, but does not declare read-only status, output format, or potential side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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 with front-loaded verb and resource. Every word adds value—no fluff. Efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key parameters.

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?

With no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers main actions and common parameters but lacks return value details and behavioral notes (e.g., read-only nature). Adequate for experienced users but missing context for newcomers.

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%, but description adds meaning: it clarifies action enum values ('container status', 'resolved compose config', 'service log tail') and specifies 'tail' defaults and limit. This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool queries docker compose state, listing three specific actions (ps, config, logs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like compose_action (which likely modifies) and container_logs (which targets individual containers).

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?

Description implies usage for querying compose state via the three actions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., container_logs for single container logs). It provides no when-not or context for exclusion.

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