dangling_images

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

The description marks the tool as [READ], indicating no modifications. It also mentions 'reclaimable bytes' and 'prune candidates', which clarifies the read-only, advisory nature. With no annotations, this provides adequate transparency.

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 concise, with a clear title and an Args section. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured but efficient.

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 the simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter usage, and behavioral nature. It does not reference sibling tools, but for a straightforward listing command, completeness is adequate.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, but the description explicitly explains the 'target' parameter as a name from config with a default when omitted, adding necessary meaning beyond the schema.

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 it lists untagged (dangling) images and reclaimable bytes, with a specific verb/resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_images (all images) and prune_images (removal).

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 implies usage for pruning candidates but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_images or image_disk_usage. No direct exclusions or alternative references.

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