buildx_imagetools_inspect

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

Annotations already mark it read-only/non-destructive, and the description adds important behavioral context: it does not raise on a non-zero CLI exit, but still raises on missing plugin/timeout, and it returns returncode/stderr for the caller to inspect. It also discloses credential-store usage and OCI index support.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves through alternatives, error behavior, args, and returns. Every section earns its place, and the Args/Returns formatting makes it easy to scan.

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 inspect tool, it covers the full call contract: what it does, how it differs from alternatives, all parameters, the return dict shape, and when stdout contains a parseable JSON document. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains all four parameters: image with concrete examples, raw with behavior, format with mutual exclusivity, and builder as an override. This is strong compensation for the bare 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect a manifest in a registry without pulling.' It clearly distinguishes itself from docker manifest inspect and registry_manifest, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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 it replaces docker manifest inspect, explains why, and names registry_manifest as the alternative for direct HTTPS without a daemon or plugin. This gives clear when-to-use and when-to-avoid guidance.

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