inspect_compose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but there is no explicit disclosure about side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is minimal transparency for a non-annotated tool.

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 terse sentence, front-loaded and free of filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though it is more of a short label than an explanatory description.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and only a minimal description, an agent gets no sense of what 'details' are returned or what preconditions apply. The two parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description leaves too much context to inference for confident tool selection among many siblings.

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 schema provides descriptions for both parameters ('Project name' and 'Service name') with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('compose service details'), which distinguishes it from sibling inspect tools like inspect_app and inspect_database. However, 'details' is vague and the exact scope of what is returned is left unspecified.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use inspect_compose versus other inspect tools, nor any mention of exclusions or alternatives. The description simply states the operation without any context for selection.

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