image_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: that it returns summary dicts with specific fields, that 'all' shows intermediate layers, and that dangling images appear with filters={'dangling': True}. However, it doesn't mention potential edge cases like empty results or error behavior, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 an intro, usage note, args list, and returns. It is front-loaded with the primary action and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 explains the return type and fields. It covers the local scope, parameter semantics, filter behavior, and points to image_inspect for full payloads. This is complete for the tool's complexity and context.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: repository filters by repo, all shows intermediate layers, and filters provides attributes with examples (label, dangling, before, since). This is essential and well done.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List images in the daemon's local store.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like registry_tags/hub_tags and image_search by stating 'Local only.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Local only — for a registry's contents use registry_tags / hub_tags, and image_search to find images on Docker Hub.' It also advises using image_inspect for full details, clarifying when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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