find_images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return shape ('Returns JSON array of matching image objects'), which matters because no output schema exists; it says nothing about pagination or result limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return value; each sentence carries information. It is slightly padded by the parenthetical provider examples and the restatement of filters, but there is no filler or 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?

For a read-only search tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, use cases, filters, and return shape, and the annotations cover safety. With no output schema it usefully describes the return as an array of image objects; only pagination/limits and the distinction from get_image_tags are missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four filters. The description only restates them at a high level ('filtering by query string, region, and account') without adding format, syntax, or matching-behavior detail, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for machine images (AMIs, GCE images, Docker images)') scoped to Spinnaker and a cloud provider, which is far more precise than a bare 'find images'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_image_tags, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between the two.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts: 'find images for a deployment or verify which image versions are available.' That tells the agent when this tool is relevant, but offers no exclusions and never names get_image_tags or another alternative as the better choice in a given situation.

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