image_inspect

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral detail: it returns config, size, layer digests, all tags/digests, and only inspects local images. No contradictions. Slight deduction for not mentioning potential performance or auth, but annotations cover safety.

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?

Concise single paragraph with clear front-loading of main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, included fields, alternative tools, local-only limitation, parameter/return spec. No filler.

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 simple inspection tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (dict with config, size, layers, tags) and alternative tools. Parameter is documented. No gaps in context for an agent.

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 0%, but description fully explains the single parameter id_or_name: 'Image name (with optional tag/digest) or id'. This adds essential semantics beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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?

Description clearly states it returns full inspect detail for a single local image, listing specific fields (config, size, layer digests, tags). It distinguishes from siblings image_list, image_history, image_registry_data, and registry_manifest by explicitly naming them and contrasting their 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?

Explicit recommendations: use image_list for quick overview, image_history for per-layer build history, image_registry_data/registry_manifest for remote images without pulling. Also notes limitation to locally present images.

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