list_images

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. The word 'lists' clearly indicates a read-only operation without side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes or require no special permissions. For a listing operation, this level of transparency is adequate, but a more explicit note would warrant a 5.

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 highly concise, consisting of two short sentences. It provides necessary information without any redundancy, fluff, or extraneous details. The structure is straightforward and easy to parse.

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 essential context: what it lists, the inclusion of untagged/intermediate images, and the output fields (short ID, tags, size). While it does not mention sorting, filtering, or output format beyond these fields, these are not critical for a simple listing tool. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description avoids any irrelevant parameter details. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist.

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: 'Lists all local Docker images, including untagged/intermediate ones.' The verb 'lists' is specific, and the resource is precisely identified as 'local Docker images.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling image-related tools by including untagged/intermediate images and specifying output details.

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 implies usage for viewing images but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pull_image, delete_image, or scan_image. There is no explicit guidance on conditions or scenarios where listing is preferred, so the guidance is only implicit.

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