docker_compose_logs

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, but it adds no additional behavioral context. It does not mention default tail behavior, whether logs are returned for all services if no service is specified, or any dependencies like project_dir. Beyond the safe-read annotation, the description offers minimal value.

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 containing only essential words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. There is no unnecessary verbosity, though the brevity also contributes to the lack of detail noted in other dimensions.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with three parameters and a sibling 'logs_container' that overlaps in functionality. The description does not clarify the project directory requirement, the default scope of logs, or how this differs from 'logs_container'. Given the sparse schema and absence of an output schema, the description is too incomplete for reliable tool selection.

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 schema description coverage is only 33%, with just 'tail' having a description. The tool description does not explain the 'service' or 'project_dir' parameters, nor does it clarify defaults or behavior. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate and leaves parameter meanings ambiguous.

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 'Get Docker Compose service logs.' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (Docker Compose service logs), making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'logs_container' or other compose-related tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 'logs_container' or 'docker_compose_ps'. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or selection criteria, leaving the agent without context for choosing correctly.

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