image_load

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-destructive mutation. Description adds valuable behavioral details: data is base64-encoded by MCP, from_file is streamed directly, and the server reads the file with ~ expansion. This surpasses annotation-only insight.

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 concise (three sentences plus arg list), front-loaded with the core operation, and efficiently covers the main decision (which parameter to use) and relevant details without verbosity.

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 no output schema, the description specifies return type as a list of image attrs dicts. It covers all key aspects: source (tarball), input methods, constraints, and the necessary prerequisite (produced by image_save/docker save).

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description fully explains both parameters: data is in-band tarball bytes, from_file is a host path with shell expansion. It clarifies the exactly-one constraint not enforced by schema, and explains the encoding tradeoff.

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 verb 'Load', the resource 'image from a tarball', and specifies origin from image_save. It distinguishes between the two input methods (data vs from_file) and references sibling image_load complements image_save, providing clear purpose.

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 exactly one of data or from_file must be passed, and provides guidance on when to prefer from_file (for anything but small images due to base64 encoding). While it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools for other image operations, the context is clear for this specific load operation.

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