buildx_imagetools_create

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

Beyond the basic readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses critical non-obvious behavior: 'Does not raise on a non-zero CLI exit — inspect returncode/stderr in the result.' It also clarifies the prerequisite that source tags must already be pushed and that append modifies an existing manifest. This adds substantial behavioral context not captured by 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral notes, then a neatly organized args list, and finally the return type. Every sentence adds value; the text is dense but not verbose, covering all necessary details without repetition.

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 9-parameter complexity and absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It includes prerequisites, side-effects, failure behavior, default timeout, return format, and pointers to related tools. No important aspect is left undocumented.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% schema coverage), but the description's 'args' section explains every one of the 9 parameters with meaningful details, such as `target` being 'Tag for the new manifest list (-t)', `dry_run` printing without pushing, and `descriptor_files` reading from files instead of refs. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, even providing CLI flag mappings and usage nuances.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a manifest list / OCI image index from existing per-platform tags.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like buildx_imagetools_inspect by explicitly naming the verification tool and contrasting with docker manifest create/push.

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 states when to use: 'Source tags must already be pushed; this only stitches them together' and provides an alternative: 'Replaces docker manifest create + docker manifest push.' It also recommends the next step: 'Verify the result with buildx_imagetools_inspect,' giving clear context on usage and alternatives.

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