🟢 One compose/image build status & details. UUID from get_composes—not "latest" alone.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the identifier constraint; it says nothing about error behavior for an unknown/stale UUID or whether the compose must be finished before details are meaningful.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the identifier rule. No filler sentences, though the brevity means it is essentially the title restated rather than an expanded definition.

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 described, and annotations cover the read-only nature. For a one-parameter lookup the coverage is minimally adequate, but nothing explains failure modes or what "status & details" can include when the build is incomplete.

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% and the single parameter is documented as "The exact UUID string from get_composes()". The description reinforces that and adds the "not 'latest' alone" caveat, but supplies no format/syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 a precondition (the UUID must come from get_composes()) and a negative constraint (do not pass "latest" alone), which is real routing guidance. It does not say when to call this versus get_composes or the other image-builder lookups, so usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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