Get project containers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by stating the response includes 'current status, port mappings, and runtime configuration,' which helps the agent anticipate the output. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 three sentences: purpose, response content, and usage. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no filler or redundancy, and the key scoping is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read-only list operation with two parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's action, return data type, and intended use. It does not mention error conditions or pagination, but for this straightforward tool, the information provided is sufficient.

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?

Both parameters (projectName, virtualMachineId) have descriptions in the input schema, so coverage is 100%. The description does not add any further parameter details, so it relies on the schema as expected for a baseline of 3.

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 verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'list of all containers' for a specific Docker Compose project. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like VPS_getProjectListV1 (list projects) and VPS_getProjectContentsV1 by specifying the container focus.

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 provides an explicit use case: 'monitor the health and state of all services within your Docker Compose project.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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