build_docker_image

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. It only states the action ('build') without any details on what happens during the build (e.g., whether it pushes to a registry, requires authentication, has rate limits, or is destructive). For a tool that likely involves complex operations, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 phrase ('构建 Docker 镜像'), which is overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it's front-loaded, it lacks necessary detail, making it inefficient rather than appropriately sized for a tool with complex parameters and no annotations.

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 (building Docker images involves multiple steps and parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. Although an output schema exists (which might help with return values), the description fails to provide any context on behavior, usage, or parameters, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent.

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 0%, meaning none of the parameters (config with nested properties like repo_name, tag, source_path) are described in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, failing to compensate for the schema gap. It doesn't explain what 'config' entails or how parameters interact.

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 '构建 Docker 镜像' is a direct translation of the tool name 'build_docker_image', making it tautological. It doesn't specify what kind of Docker image is being built, for what purpose, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_docker_image_url'. While the verb 'build' is clear, the resource 'Docker image' is generic without context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a Dockerfile), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'check_build_status' or 'get_docker_image_url'. The description offers no context for usage decisions.

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