scout_recommendations

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

Beyond readOnlyHint, the description discloses that it does not raise on a non-zero CLI exit (except for missing plugin) and instructs to inspect `raw.stderr`. It also explains the computation source (Docker Scout's catalog) and auth requirement, adding significant context.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then adds context and args. It is slightly dense but each sentence adds value; no filler.

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?

The returns section describes the output dict structure, and the description covers error handling and auth. Although there is no output schema, the description provides sufficient detail for successful invocation and result interpretation.

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 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by listing all six parameters with meaningful one-liners. For instance, it distinguishes `only_refresh` ('same major/minor') from `only_update` ('newer minor/major'), and specifies `format` defaults to 'json'.

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 opening sentence 'Suggest base-image upgrades for an image' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly defining the tool's function. It also positions it as a follow-up to `scout_cves`, distinguishing it from sibling Scout tools.

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?

States 'The natural follow-up to `scout_cves` when the fix is a newer base image,' providing an explicit use case and an alternative. Also notes the `docker login` prerequisite for useful results on private images, which guides deployment.

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