inspect_image

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a read operation, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on error, or the nature of the returned data. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool's name.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main action. However, it is underspecified and lacks necessary detail for a tool with multiple parameters and no other documentation. While concise, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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, no annotations, three parameters with no descriptions, and a minimal description, the tool is severely incomplete. The agent has no way to understand what 'inspect' returns, the role of env_id and agent_token, or the expected behavior.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter explanations. The description only mentions 'by id', which corresponds to image_id, but ignores env_id and agent_token entirely. With three parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to provide any meaningful parameter semantics.

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 uses the verb 'inspect' with the resource 'image', clearly indicating the target and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like inspect_container, inspect_network, and inspect_volume, which operate on different resources. However, it does not differentiate from other image-specific tools like get_image_history or get_image_attestations.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_images, list_images, or get_image_*. The description does not state any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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