Escanear imagen de contenedor

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 and external-network nature are covered structurally. The description adds real value by saying Trivy is the engine and which artifact classes are inspected, but omits whether the image is pulled from a registry, whether auth is needed for private images, how long a scan takes, and where results land (presumably findings_query, never referenced).

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 dense sentence with no filler, and the engine plus image sources are front-loaded. It is compact to the point of terseness, but nothing in it is redundant against the schema or annotations.

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 an external, potentially slow scanner with no output schema, the description should mention runtime expectations, auth needs for private registries, and the downstream destination of findings (findings_query / runs_diff siblings exist). It covers what is scanned but not operational context, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it now.

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 67%, and the description adds meaning the schema does not: the image parameter can be a registry reference, a local image, or a .tar archive, which is significant for how to call it. The enumeration of scanned facets (OS/language packages, secrets, embedded config) implicitly maps to the vuln/secret/misconfig scanner values. The timeout_minutes parameter is not addressed anywhere.

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 names a specific engine (Trivy) and a specific resource (a container image), and enumerates what is inspected: OS and language packages for CVEs, secrets, and embedded configuration. The 'registro, local o archivo .tar' clause clarifies the accepted image sources. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as scan_iac or scan_static, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can route to it.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent infers 'use this when you have a container image to scan'. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. scan_iac for IaC files, scan_static for source). No prerequisites or guidance about private registry credentials are given.

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