image_and_volume_bloat

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature, aggregation into prune candidates sorted largest first, and the skip-live behavior when payloads are passed. Missing details on output format but otherwise transparent.

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 and well-structured: a clear first line with [READ] and summary, followed by explanation and a bulleted args list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 4 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers usage, parameter semantics, and output behavior adequately. It provides enough context for a read-only aggregation tool.

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 0%, but description details all 4 parameters: dangling_images, dangling_volumes, df, and target. It explains their structure and usage, adding significant value 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 sums dangling images, volumes, and build cache into reclaimable-byte prune candidates, with a [READ] tag indicating read-only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dangling_images and dangling_volumes.

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 two usage modes: pass pre-injected payloads for pure analysis or target for live data. It implicitly suggests when to use this aggregation tool vs siblings, but does not explicitly exclude scenarios.

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