compose_ps

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 safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the return envelope shape but nothing about behavior such as what happens when no containers are running, whether it auto-creates a project, or how the timeout interacts with a slow stack.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by clearly headed return-format and example blocks. Slightly wasteful: the Return Format section largely restates the output schema and takes as much space as the actual behavioral content.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the essentials are present, but the two undocumented parameters (timeout, services) are a real gap an agent could stumble on. The space spent duplicating the output schema would have been better used explaining those inputs.

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%, so the description must carry all four parameters, yet it only illustrates `path` and `all_services` via examples. `timeout` (default 120) and `services` (array filter) are never mentioned anywhere, leaving half the parameters semantically opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (compose services) and anchors it to the exact underlying command (`docker compose ps --format json`), which makes the scope unambiguous. Against siblings like compose_logs, compose_config, and compose_up, an agent can immediately tell this is the service-status lister.

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?

Usage is only implied through two examples (`path=...` and `all_services=True`), which show typical call shapes but never state when to pick this over compose_config or compose_logs, nor any preconditions (e.g. the project must already be running). No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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