buildx_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the bootstrap parameter potentially modifying state (booting the builder), which is a useful behavioral disclosure beyond annotations. The return format is also described.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a list of args and return info. It is front-loaded with the purpose and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 simple nature of the tool (2 optional params, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains the return format (dict with stdout, stderr, etc.) and mentions when to use an alternative. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the safety of the default operation.

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 input schema has two parameters with defaults, but no descriptions. The tool description adds semantics by explaining 'name' as builder name (defaulting to active) and 'bootstrap' as booting the builder if not running. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 builder instance.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like buildx_list (list builders) and buildx_history_inspect (inspect history).

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 provides guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it notes that stdout is human-readable and suggests using buildx_list for JSON output. It also explains parameters like name (defaults to active builder) and bootstrap, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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