registry_image_config

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true` and `destructiveHint: false`. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it resolves in up to three hops, explains the resolution process, and notes that repository tag/digest is stripped and passed via `reference`. No contradictions with 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured list of parameter descriptions. Each sentence adds value, and the overall length is appropriate for the complexity. No redundant or vague statements.

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 (multi-platform resolution, credential handling) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the return format, parameter behavior, and resolution process. Missing details on error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid credentials) but otherwise complete for an agent to use 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 full burden. It provides detailed, human-readable descriptions for all five parameters, including examples, default values, and override behavior (e.g., username/password override env vars). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states the action ('Fetch and parse an image's config blob from a registry without pulling') and the resource ('image's config blob'). It distinguishes from the sibling `registry_manifest` by noting that this tool retrieves actual config details (`env vars, entrypoint/cmd, workdir, exposed ports, user, labels, layer history`) whereas `registry_manifest` only points to the config digest.

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 context on when to use this tool (to inspect image contents without pulling) and contrasts it with `registry_manifest`. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for other scenarios, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.

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