push_docker_to_registry

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the dry-run default behavior, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits details about required authentication, network access, or potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing tags).

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 a single sentence, highly concise with no extraneous words. However, the brevity sacrifices essential parameter guidance, slightly reducing effectiveness. Overall, it earns its place but could be restructured to include parameter details.

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 tool's complexity (push with conditional behavior), the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of the 'tag' parameter, return values (though output schema exists but not described), and error conditions. For a mutation tool without annotations, more context is needed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the sole required parameter 'tag'. It fails to do so entirely—no format, purpose, or examples are provided. The agent cannot infer what value the 'tag' should hold (e.g., image name, version, or full URL).

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 action 'Push' and the resource 'Docker image to the configured registry'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like '_mcp_build_docker_image' by focusing on the push step. The dry-run conditional adds specificity.

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 provides a clear conditional: it performs a dry-run unless the FTOS_REGISTRY environment variable is configured. This guides when the tool actually pushes vs just simulates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives like building or testing.

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