scout_recommendations

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds the behavioral note about requiring `docker login` for private images, which is useful but doesn't disclose other traits like error behavior or rate limits.

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: two introductory sentences followed by a structured argument list. The key points (login requirement, parameter meanings) are front-loaded. Minor informality in the args format but overall efficient.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers parameter semantics and return format. It lacks details on error handling, pagination, or more nuanced behavior. Annotations provide safety context but completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 must compensate. It lists all 6 parameters with meaningful explanations (e.g., 'only_refresh - Only show refresh recommendations (same major/minor)'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 suggests base-image upgrades. The verb 'Suggest' and resource 'base-image upgrades' are specific. Among sibling tools like scout_cves (vulnerabilities) and scout_quickview (quick info), this one is distinct and clear.

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 the important guideline that `docker login` is generally needed for useful results on private images. However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool vs alternatives like scout_cves or scout_quickview, leaving some ambiguity.

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