buildx_imagetools_create

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description reveals the tool pushes the index in one operation and supports dry_run, which implies safety. It also mentions subprocess timeout behavior. No contradictions with annotations; the description adds context about combining sources and appending.

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 efficient: one sentence for purpose, one for legacy comparison, one for prerequisite, then a clean list of parameters. Every sentence adds essential information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured for quick scanning.

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 tool's action, parameters, return value (dict with stdout/stderr/returncode), and mentions default timeout (600s). Given no output schema, the return format note is useful. However, it could mention error scenarios or when append might cause issues, but overall it is sufficient for a typical 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes a full args section explaining all 9 parameters with practical notes (e.g., 'append - Append to the existing manifest at target rather than replacing', 'dry_run - Print the resulting manifest without pushing'). This adds significant meaning beyond the parameter names and types.

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 creates a manifest list/OCI image index from existing per-platform tags. It includes a direct comparison to deprecated docker commands ('Replaces docker manifest create + docker manifest push'), distinguishing it from other buildx tools like buildx_build (building images) and buildx_imagetools_inspect (inspecting manifests).

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 clear when-to-use context: it replaces a two-step docker process and specifies prerequisite ('Source tags must already be pushed; this only stitches them together'). It also explains the operation merges existing images. However, it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools, though the context signals include many siblings.

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