image_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral details: returned fields (Id, Created, CreatedBy, Size, Comment), potential '<missing>' placeholder for imported layers, and ordering newest first. This enriches the agent's understanding 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 with two short paragraphs and a structured args/returns section. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds usage guidance and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter input and no output schema, the description fully covers all necessary context: parameter format, output structure, usage scenarios, and alternative tool. Annotations complement with safety info. No gaps remain.

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?

The sole parameter 'name' is fully explained in the description as 'Image name (with optional tag/digest) or id', adding meaningful context that the raw schema (just string type) lacks. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates completely.

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 returns the layer history of an image, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_image (full metadata) and list_images, establishing a unique purpose.

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 provides usage context: auditing commands and diagnosing image size. It also directs users to get_image for full metadata, offering a clear alternative and when-not-to-use advice.

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