buildx_imagetools_inspect

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that inspection happens without pulling, explains the return format including truncated flag, and details behavior of raw and format flags. This provides behavioral context beyond annotations.

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: a one-line summary, context about replacement, then a clean parameter list with inline descriptions. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return dict structure and when stdout is JSON. It covers parameters and replaces a known command. It omits details like network requirements or authentication, but these are typical for registry tools. Overall, it provides sufficient context 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description does all the work. It documents all four parameters: 'image' with example references, 'raw' and 'format' with their effects and mutual exclusivity, and 'builder' with its purpose. This adds essential meaning that the schema lacks.

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 inspects a manifest in a registry without pulling, with a specific verb (inspect) and resource (manifest). It distinguishes itself from the deprecated 'docker manifest inspect' and explains support for OCI image indexes, multi-platform manifests, and attestations, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says this tool replaces 'docker manifest inspect' and highlights when to use it—when OCI support is needed. It provides context but does not explicitly list alternatives (e.g., 'registry_inspect_manifest' or 'get_image'), though the replacement statement gives adequate guidance for common use cases.

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