push_image

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

The description discloses that the tool tags a local image and pushes it, and that it requires prior docker login. It does not mention potential side effects such as overwriting an existing remote tag or modifying the local image tag list, nor does it describe failure modes. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially covers behavior.

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 purpose, the second provides a prerequisite and a constraint, and the argument list gives examples in a clear bullet-like format. No extraneous information is included.

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 straightforward push operation, the description covers the essential preconditions and parameters. It does not explain the output or return value, but an output schema is present, so that information is available elsewhere. It also does not address edge cases like tag overwriting, but these are arguably beyond the scope for a basic tool description.

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?

All three parameters are clearly explained in the description text with examples: local_image is the current machine's image, repository is the full destination name, and image_tag is the tag to push. Although the schema itself lacks descriptions (coverage 0%), the description provides full semantic coverage, so the added meaning is high.

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: it tags a local Docker image with a registry repository name and pushes it. It also provides concrete examples (Docker Hub, AWS ECR) that situate it within the container management context. While it does not explicitly name a sibling tool, the action (push) is distinct from pull, build, and list operations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions a prerequisite (docker login) and explicitly states that credentials are not accepted, but it does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to use push_image versus pull_image or build_image). It lacks a 'use this when...' or 'use that instead when...' recommendation.

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