get_docker_image_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is read-only via the Docker API and discloses fatal conditions (daemon unreachable, unknown image), which is valuable operational context beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second adds behavioral caveats, the third provides usage guidance and sibling reference. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, error conditions, read-only nature, and when to use it. It is fully complete given the richness of the schema and sibling context.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter image_id with the description 'image name or ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond implying the image to inspect, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns an image's config, env, entrypoint, labels, and layers, using the specific verb 'Returns' with a well-defined resource. It differentiates from the sibling tool get_docker_image_history, which is for build steps.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool to inspect a single image and directs users to get_docker_image_history for build steps. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool.

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