scout_recommendations

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

No annotation contradictions. The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint by noting the login requirement and the dependence on Scout's catalog. Annotations already indicate non-destructive read, so the description's extra context 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 approximately 100 words, starting with a one-line summary, then context, then a bulleted args list. It is efficient and readable, though the args section could be formatted as a list for clarity.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key inputs and indicates the return structure (dict with format, result, raw). The login prerequisite is noted. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'only_refresh - Only show refresh recommendations'), but lacks details like allowed values or format constraints. This provides basic meaning but could be more helpful.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Suggest base-image upgrades for an image.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scout_cves or scout_sbom.

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?

The description explains that results depend on Docker Scout's catalog and that docker login is needed for private images, providing important context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the prerequisite is clear.

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