image_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it mentions dangling build leftovers, the return payload structure, and that image_inspect is the way to get full details, going beyond the schema.

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?

Well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage alternatives, an args section, and a returns section. Every sentence is informative and no words are wasted, making it easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity, lack of output schema, and presence of annotations, this description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, scope, alternatives, parameters, and return value. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description fully compensates by documenting each parameter: repository, all, and filters, including what they do and the expected type of filters. It also explains the return value format.

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 lists images in the daemon's local store, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that registry contents are handled by registry_tags/hub_tags and image_search.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Local only — for a registry's contents use registry_tags / hub_tags, and image_search to find images on Docker Hub.' Also provides a specific filter example for dangling images.

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