compose_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'View' conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not mention streaming behavior, default output scope, or potential blocking behavior when 'follow' is enabled. These are meaningful behavioral traits for a log 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It states the verb and resource directly and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 is simple, has no required parameters, and the schema already documents every parameter. The description is sufficient for a basic understanding, though it could be slightly stronger by explicitly contrasting with 'container_logs' or noting default behavior. Overall, an agent can select and invoke it correctly with the provided information.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the tool's overall purpose, which is consistent with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('View') and a specific resource ('Docker Compose service logs'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It clearly points to Compose-related logging rather than individual container logging, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'container_logs' tool.

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 phrase 'Docker Compose service logs' implies when the tool should be used, but the description provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as 'container_logs'. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or named fallback tools, leaving the routing decision largely to inference.

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