Docker Images

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about read-only nature, host/profile/scheme resolution behavior, pagination, or failure modes when no host is configured. Only the implicit reading of "list" signals a non-mutating operation.

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 single sentence is waste-free, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise; for a tool with 4 connection-related parameters it leaves useful scope information unstated.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description omits any context about connection parameters, default host/profile behavior, or the relationship to sibling Docker tools. For a 4-parameter tool with zero annotations, this is thin.

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 100%, so host, port, scheme, and profile are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ("列出"/list) and resource ("Docker 镜像"/Docker images), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like docker_image_inspect or docker_containers, which also touch Docker images.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as docker_image_inspect (for detail) or docker_image_pull. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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