image_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it only works on local images and lists output contents (config, size, layer digests, tags). No contradictions, and it provides useful 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?

Description is concise and well-structured: brief purpose, then details on output, then alternatives, then parameter info. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description is very complete: it specifies the return content, local-only constraint, and references sibling tools for related tasks. It also notes equivalence to 'docker inspect'.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds a clear definition for the single parameter: 'id_or_name - Image name (with optional tag/digest) or id'. This explains the format and scope, compensating for the schema lack.

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 it returns the full inspect detail for a single local image, and distinguishes from siblings like image_list (quick overview), image_history (per-layer build history), and image_registry_data (remote manifest).

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?

Explicitly provides when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'For a quick overview of many images use image_list instead. For the per-layer build history... use image_history. Only inspects images already present locally — for a remote image's manifest without pulling it use image_registry_data or registry_manifest.'

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