List images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, fully disclosing safety and idempotency. The description adds zero additional behavioral insight (e.g., no mention of pagination, rate limits, or error states), thus contributing no value beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence communicates the core purpose without any extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple, with a fully described schema (parameters, defaults, enums) and robust annotations. The description confirms the read scope (list in environment). Although it omits output format details (no output schema), the operation is well-understood for a list action. The existing structured fields compensate sufficiently.

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%, meaning every parameter is described in the input schema. The description does not augment parameter meaning (e.g., no explanation of environmentId's format or relationship). Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries full descriptive burden.

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 title 'List images' and description 'List Docker images in an environment' clearly state the verb (list) and resource (Docker images), and the scope (in an environment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arcane_image_get (single image) or arcane_image_delete, providing unambiguous purpose.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., arcane_image_get for a specific image, arcane_image_list vs arcane_image_get_counts). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.

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