Get project list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it lists exactly what is returned (name, status, file path, container details) and explicitly states that container stats are omitted. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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 well-structured and efficiently worded: opening statement, return-content summary, explicit omission, sibling routing, and a usage recommendation. Every sentence contributes value and the most important details are 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?

Given a single well-documented parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient return-value context, names an alternative for deeper data, and clarifies the intended use case. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter `virtualMachineId` is documented as 'Virtual Machine ID' in the schema itself. The description indirectly ties the parameter to 'the virtual machine' but adds no parameter-specific constraints, format, or additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool retrieves a list of all Docker Compose projects on a virtual machine, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the related `Get project containers` endpoint, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('Use this to get an overview of all Docker projects') and when to use an alternative ('If you need to get detailed information about container with stats included, use the Get project containers endpoint'). This is clear routing guidance.

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