image_list

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool operates on the local store (not registry) and returns summary dicts, implying it's lightweight. It does not contradict annotations. Minor improvement: it could mention pagination or limit, but overall good.

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 (6 sentences plus param list) with a logical flow: purpose, scope/alternatives, special case, then parameter details. Every sentence serves a purpose; no 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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all bases: purpose, scope, alternatives, parameter details, return format, and a reference to `image_inspect` for full data. It is fully adequate for correct invocation.

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%, but the description fully documents all three parameters: `repository`, `all`, and `filters`, with clear explanations of each (e.g., filters support label, dangling, before, since). This compensates entirely and adds significant value.

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 starts with 'List images in the daemon's local store,' a specific verb-resource pair. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like `registry_tags` and `image_search`, and explains the special case of dangling images with filters, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 guidance: 'Local only — for a registry's contents use `registry_tags` / `hub_tags`.' It also explains how to handle dangling images, and points to `image_inspect` for full details. This helps the agent choose between tools.

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