Compose: validate config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool validates and renders configuration, including behavior like variable interpolation and override merging. It also clarifies the meaning of a non-zero exit code. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the tool is non-destructive, though implied.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No wasted words.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient detail: core functions, parameter context, and error indication. No gaps remain.

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 the description adds valuable meaning beyond the schema: it explains that relative paths in the 'file' parameter resolve against the server's working directory, and that the 'project' parameter defaults to the folder name. This enriches understanding.

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 clearly states the tool validates a Compose file and renders its fully-resolved configuration. It uses specific verbs ('Validate', 'render') and resources ('Compose file', 'fully-resolved configuration'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like compose_down or container_logs.

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 implies the tool is used for validation and rendering, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide exclusions. It mentions the meaning of a non-zero result, offering some usage context.

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