image_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: it lists exactly what is included (config, size, layer digests, RepoTags/RepoDigests) and states the local-only constraint. No contradiction with 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: purpose first, then return details, then sibling distinctions, then parameter/return spec. Every sentence serves a purpose and no information is redundant or wasteful.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains what the return dict contains, mentions equivalence to docker inspect, covers local-only behavior, and points to alternatives in sibling tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully carries the parameter burden. It defines id_or_name as 'Image name (with optional tag/digest) or id', giving syntax and allowed values that the raw schema lacks.

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+resource: 'Return the full inspect detail for a single local image.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming image_list, image_history, and image_registry_data/registry_manifest for other use cases.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use image_list for quick overviews of many images, image_history for per-layer build history, and registry_manifest/image_registry_data for remote manifests without pulling. Also clarifies it only works on local images.

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