d365_plugin_images_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description contributes genuine beyond-schema behavior: results are bounded and self-report completeness, and continuation links are deliberately not followed. This tells the agent to check completeness rather than assume an exhaustive list — a meaningful operational caveat.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the scope stated first and the behavioral caveats second. No filler, though the phrase "bounded results report completeness" is somewhat compressed and takes a second read.

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 single-purpose query with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and how truncation behaves, which is the critical piece. It stops short of describing what a native image record contains or how the step identifier is obtained, leaving gaps an agent must fill from trial or siblings.

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% across three parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely does not. It only hints that the step identifier is matched exactly; `top`, the stepId/step_id aliasing, the UUID format constraint, and the anyOf-one-of requirement are left entirely to the caller to infer from the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: "List native images for an exact step." The qualifier "without reading plugin configuration" distinguishes it from heavier inspection siblings like d365_plugin_assembly_inspect, though it never names an explicit alternative.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you already know the step and want only its images, avoiding the cost of reading plugin configuration. There is no explicit when-not condition or named sibling to use instead (e.g. when the step id is unknown, use d365_plugin_steps_query).

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