get_docker_image_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only via the Docker API', a key safety trait, and implies an external Docker dependency. This goes beyond what the tool name alone would convey, though it could mention error behavior or prerequisites.

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 three crisp sentences, each serving a purpose: functionality, read-only safety, and usage guidance with a fallback tool. There is 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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, its safety, when to use it, and how it differs from a sibling tool. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 only parameter image_id is fully described in the schema as 'image name or ID'. The description adds no further parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Returns an image's layer history: commands, sizes, and creation times' — a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_docker_image_details by mentioning it for config and labels.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use to understand what an image is built from'. It also directs users to get_docker_image_details for a different need, clearly differentiating the tools.

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