image_pull

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature. The description adds behavioral context such as credential requirements for private repos and the return format (dict or list). It does not contradict 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, well-structured, and front-loaded. It starts with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a prerequisite note, alternative suggestions, and a compact parameter list. No unnecessary information is present.

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 has 4 parameters, an output schema present, and annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, alternatives, parameter meanings, and return type. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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%, so the description carries the burden. It provides brief parameter descriptions in the 'args' section, clarifying that 'tag' is ignored when all_tags=True and that 'platform' uses os/arch format. However, the descriptions are minimal and could offer more detail on defaults or interactions.

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 'Pull an image from a registry to the daemon's local store', using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning alternatives like image_load for tarballs and registry_manifest for remote inspection.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: it notes that private repositories need credentials via system_login, and advises using image_load for tarballs or registry_manifest/image_registry_data to inspect remote images without pulling. This comprehensively covers prerequisites and alternatives.

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