build_image

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (builds) but does not explicitly mention side effects like creating a local image, potential network access, or that it does not affect running containers. This is not misleading, but it lacks explicit transparency about the operation's side effects.

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. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clarifying context about build context and path formats, then a clean listing of the two arguments. It maintains a logical flow without unnecessary repetition.

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 adequately covers the essential context for a build operation: what it does, build context behavior, and path format requirements. The output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. While it omits details like error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., Docker daemon must be running), these are likely assumed for a Docker tool and do not severely impact completeness.

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 enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema. It explicitly describes image_tag as 'tag to give the built image' with an example, and dockerfile_path as 'full path to an existing Dockerfile' with details on accepted path formats. This adds significant semantic clarity beyond the basic type/title information in the input 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 the tool's function: 'Builds a Docker image from a Dockerfile already saved on disk.' It specifies the verb (builds), resource (Docker image from Dockerfile), and scope (from a saved file). This unambiguously distinguishes it from other Docker-related tools like running containers or pulling images.

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 practical usage guidance by clarifying that the build context is the folder containing the Dockerfile and by specifying accepted path formats (Windows and Git Bash). It does not explicitly compare against alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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