list_images

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are compact by default and expanded by detailed=true. It does not mention result caps, pagination, or ordering, but the bar is lower given full annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by filtering then output shape. No filler and nothing buried.

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 parameterless-required list tool this covers purpose and output granularity, but with no output schema and only 25% schema description coverage, the description should say what happens when no desk/project filter is supplied and roughly what fields a record contains. Those gaps leave an agent guessing about scope and result size.

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 coverage is 25%, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it clarifies that detailed=true yields full image records versus compact defaults, and that a desk filter is optional. It never explains the relationship between desk_id, desk_url, and project_id (that desk_url supplies both), leaving three parameters without semantic guidance.

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 and resource ('List images') plus what each record carries (native build statuses, Dockerfile paths). It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_files or get_deployment in substance, though it never explicitly names the neighboring tools it differs from.

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?

Usage is only implied: call it when you want images, optionally scoped by desk. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or any pointer to list_files or another sibling as the alternative for a different resource.

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