buildx_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the tool does not raise on a non-zero CLI exit, while missing plugins or timeouts still raise, and directs the agent to inspect returncode/stderr. This is valuable exception-level transparency.

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 with purpose, comparative guidance, exception behavior, Args, and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the sibling distinction. Minor redundancy exists, such as mentioning 'human-readable' twice, but the length is justified by the need to compensate for the sparse schema and absent output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does: it provides the exact dict shape and notes stdout is human-readable. It also covers parameter semantics, error behavior, and when to prefer buildx_list. Nothing needed to call this tool 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 for parameter meaning. It fully documents both parameters: name defaults to the active builder, and bootstrap boots the builder if it isn't running. No parameter is left unexplained.

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 builder instance.' It then clarifies the scope by noting it returns human-readable detail for one builder and explicitly contrasts this with buildx_list, which returns JSON for all builders. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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?

The description explicitly names buildx_list as the alternative for machine-parsed JSON covering all builders, and states that buildx_inspect is for human-readable detail on one builder. It also advises calling buildx_list when JSON output is needed, giving the agent clear routing guidance.

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