Build image

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

Annotations indicate write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it supports build args and multi-platform builds, but lacks details on effects like image overwriting, time consumption, or network dependencies.

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?

A single sentence of 16 words effectively communicates the tool's purpose and key features, with no wasted words or repetition.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality (Dockerfile/Git URL, build args, multi-platform). However, it omits mention of required fields (environmentId, tag) and post-build 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description highlights build args and multi-platform builds, adding context but not new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 builds a Docker image from a Dockerfile or Git URL, and mentions support for build args and multi-platform builds. This distinguishes it from siblings like arcane_build_get or arcane_image_pull.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arcane_project_build or arcane_image_pull. The description does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it.

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