🟢 List image builds (composes) with status; newest first. limit/offset default 7, 0.

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. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the schema: results are ordered 'newest first'. It does not mention pagination limits, rate limits, or auth needs, so it adds only modest value.

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 that wastes no words, though it is verbatim identical to the title (pure duplication) and the 'default 7, 0' phrasing is slightly compressed/awkward. Still appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 no explanation, and the read-only list behavior is straightforward. Ordering and scope are covered; only when-to-use/alternative routing is missing, which is a minor gap for a simple listing tool.

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% and all three parameters (limit, offset, search_string) are documented in the schema. The description merely restates the limit/offset defaults already present in the schema and adds nothing about search_string semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

It states defaults but offers no when-to-use guidance, no condition for choosing this over get_compose_details or get_blueprints, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the verb alone.

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