image_and_volume_bloat

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds '[READ]', the 'largest first' ordering, and the fact that injected payloads skip live calls. These are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations, though return format and any auth/prerequisite details are not covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then usage and Args. There is slight redundancy between the first line and 'Sums dangling images, dangling volumes, and build cache', but the overall structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Covers purpose, invocation modes, and all four parameters for a read-only aggregation tool with no output schema. Return shape is described as 'reclaimable-byte prune candidates, largest first', which is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full burden. Its Args section gives expected payload shapes for dangling_images, dangling_volumes, and df, and explains target/config semantics, providing substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

States a specific aggregation verb ('Sums') and the exact resources (dangling images, dangling volumes, build cache) and output ('reclaimable-byte prune candidates, largest first'). It distinguishes as read-only via '[READ]', but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like resource_pressure_analysis or the prune tools.

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 explains how to invoke it (pass payloads for pure analysis, or a target to pull live), which implies usage context. However, it does not compare this tool to alternatives such as resource_pressure_analysis or prune_images/prune_volumes, so when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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