Deploy a docker-compose project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool clones/updates a git repo, installs Docker if missing, writes a .env file if provided, and runs docker compose up -d --build. This covers major side effects (Docker installation, file creation). However, it does not mention prerequisites like git existing, potential overwriting of existing files, or what happens on failure. Still, it is fairly transparent.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main action and lists key steps. Every phrase is necessary, and there is no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main workflow but misses important details like parameter relationships, success criteria, or what happens when Docker is already installed. The sibling tools are diverse, and more context on when to use this over exec or write_file would improve completeness. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all 9 parameters with individual descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond providing a high-level workflow (e.g., 'writes a .env file if provided' maps to envFileContent). With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter 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 title and description clearly state it deploys a docker-compose project. The description enumerates specific steps (clone/update git repo, install Docker, write .env file, run docker compose up -d --build), making the purpose very specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like deploy_python_bot, exec, and write_file.

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 usage for docker-compose projects but provides no explicit guidelines on when to use or avoid this tool. No alternatives are mentioned, and there is no discussion of prerequisites or scenarios where exec or write_file might be preferred. The context from sibling tools offers some implicit differentiation, but the description itself lacks guidance.

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