buildx_history_inspect

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so description adds value by detailing how ref is resolved to bare id, builder defaults, and return format (dict or raw). No contradiction.

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?

Description is front-loaded with core purpose, then parameter details in bullets. Could be slightly more concise but every sentence adds value. Structured well.

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 two optional params, no output schema, and annotations present, description covers purpose, usage context, parameter details, and return format. Mentions integration with buildx_history_list. Minor gap: no explicit mention of error handling beyond 'error (if any)'.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description fully explains both parameters: ref's qualified format handling and special values (empty/^N), and builder's default behavior. Extremely detailed and actionable.

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 'Inspect a single build record by ref' and lists the returned fields (duration, materials, attestations, error), distinguishing it from sibling buildx_history_list which lists builds.

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?

It explicitly says to use for debugging failed/slow builds found via buildx_history_list, mentions version requirement, and implies it's not for listing. Alternative sibling is referenced, but no explicit when-not-to-use.

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