Lists Docker images by tag, size, and dangling status, largest first, to help diagnose image bloat and identify cleanup candidates on a target host.
[READ] List images (tags, size, dangling), largest first.
Args: all_images: True includes intermediate layers; default only top-level. target: Target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| all_images | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the [READ] marker, the sort order (largest first), and the fields returned (tags, size, dangling). It omits auth needs, pagination, and return-format details, so it adds only moderate value.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args block. No filler or redundancy; every line conveys usable information.
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?
For a simple read-only listing with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, both parameters, ordering, and returned fields. Adequate for correct invocation, with only minor gaps like pagination or result volume.
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 carries the full param burden and does so well: all_images is explained as including intermediate layers vs top-level only, and target as a config target name defaulting to the standard. Both parameters gain meaning the bare schema lacks.
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 verb (List) and resource (images) plus what the listing surfaces (tags, size, dangling) and how it is ordered (largest first). It is clearly distinguishable from inspect_image, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like dangling_images or image_disk_usage that also touch image data.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With many overlapping siblings (dangling_images, image_disk_usage, inspect_image), an agent gets no routing help about when this broad listing is preferred over a more targeted tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.