compose_ps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain whether a compose file is required, what happens if 'file' is omitted, how 'projectName' affects results, or what the output looks like. The basic read-only nature is implied but not detailed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified for a tool with three optional parameters and no annotations.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and three optional parameters, yet the description only provides a high-level action. It omits return value expectations, default behavior, and command semantics, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently in varied situations.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no extra meaning about how 'file', 'services', or 'projectName' interplay, but it does not need to compensate for coverage gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Docker Compose services'), clearly indicating the tool's core function. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'list_containers', leaving some room for ambiguity about whether it lists services or running containers.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_containers or compose_up. The description simply states the action without any context on prerequisites, typical workflows, or exclusions.

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