inspect_image

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

The description includes '[READ]' indicating read-only operation, which is helpful. However, no annotations are present, and the description does not explicitly confirm idempotency, safety, or potential performance implications. It lacks detail beyond the verb tag.

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 purpose line followed by an Args section. It is front-loaded with '[READ]'. However, the Args section could be more structured, and the overall length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 description covers the purpose and explains both parameters. However, it does not describe the output or return values, which is notable since no output schema is provided. Given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly complete but lacks return format details.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters beyond the schema: image_id is 'Image id or name:tag', and target is 'Target name from config; omit for the default.' With 0% schema description coverage, this provides essential clarity.

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 inspects an image and its build history, including layers, sizes, and commands. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_images which only lists images, and inspect_container which inspects containers. However, it could be more explicit about what 'build history' encompasses.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_container or list_images. The description does not specify prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to avoid using it.

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