Inspect Docker Compose

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it normalises the parsed services and redacts credential-looking values, listing them by key in secret_keys. This gives the agent important expectations about safety and output shape.

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 dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and the extracted fields presented in a compact, scannable list. There is no filler, no repetition of the name, and every part adds information an agent can use.

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and an output schema provided, the description only needs to explain the tool's scope and notable behaviors such as redaction. It does that clearly, so the agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter, path, and the schema has no description for it. The tool description implies that path refers to a Compose file, but it does not specify path format, accepted extensions, or whether directories are supported. The meaning is partially compensated by the clear purpose, but not fully.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a Compose file into normalised services' and enumerates exactly what will be extracted. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_dockerfile and inspect_environment without requiring the agent to open schemas.

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 Compose-specific wording gives clear context for when to use this tool: whenever a docker-compose file needs to be parsed or inspected. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the target is unambiguous enough to route an agent correctly.

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