docker_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Build a Docker image' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention side effects (e.g., creating local image layers, potential network usage for pulling base images), performance considerations (build time, resource usage), or error handling. For a complex build tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Build a Docker image') and efficiently specifies the source ('from a Dockerfile'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of Docker builds (multiple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about what the tool returns (e.g., build logs, success/failure status), error conditions, or behavioral nuances like caching behavior or network dependencies. For a tool with 7 parameters and significant operational impact, this minimal description leaves too much unspecified.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'path' and 'dockerfile' interact) or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 ('Build') and resource ('a Docker image from a Dockerfile'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like docker_pull (downloads images) and docker_rmi (removes images) by focusing on image creation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what distinguishes it from docker_compose_up (which might also build images as part of orchestration).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a Dockerfile), when to choose this over docker_pull for obtaining images, or how it relates to sibling tools like docker_compose_up that might handle building in a different context. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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