image_inspect

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

The description goes well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint) by detailing exact output fields (config, size, RootFS.Layers, RepoTags/RepoDigests), the local-only constraint, and equivalence to docker inspect. This is valuable context for safe invocation.

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, front-loading the purpose, followed by details and usage alternatives, ending with args/returns. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition.

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 appropriately explains the return value as a dict equivalent to docker inspect and lists the key fields. It also covers all necessary usage context, making it complete for a single-parameter read-only tool.

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 schema provides only a string parameter with zero description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining id_or_name as an image name (with optional tag/digest) or an id. This is clear and complete despite the sparse 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 clearly states the tool returns the full inspect detail for a single local image. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like image_list (quick overview), image_history (build history), and image_registry_data/registry_manifest (remote manifests).

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 usage guidance is provided: use image_list for quick overviews, image_history for build history, and registry tools for remote manifests. It also clarifies the tool only works on local images, giving clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use context.

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