scan_dockerfile_file

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states it scanning the file and returns structured findings including check ID, title, resource, line range, and code snippet, which clearly implies non-mutating analysis and describes the output shape. It does not discuss error cases or external service dependencies, but the read-only nature is apparent enough.

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?

The description is well-structured: a clear first sentence states the action, a second adds usage and format context, and an argument list adds parameter semantics. There is no filler or redundancy, and all content earns its place.

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?

With two parameters, an output schema present, and a clear relationship to the sibling scan_terraform_file, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, output format, and argument semantics. It could have noted potential limitations or invalid content behavior, but for this scope the core information for correct invoking is present.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does so by explaining file_content is 'the raw text of a Dockerfile' and filename is 'used only for a friendlier label in output.' This adds useful semantic context beyond the schema's bare type/default information.

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 verb ('Scan'), the target resource ('Dockerfile content'), and the purpose ('for security misconfigurations'). It distinguishes from the sibling by naming the file type and explicitly noting the return shape is the same as scan_terraform_file, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 states 'Use this whenever the user asks to review, audit, or check the security of a Dockerfile.' This is explicit usage guidance. It doesn't explicitly say 'use scan_terraform_file for Terraform files,' though that is strongly implied by the sibling name and the shape reference, so it lacks an explicit when-not/exclusion.

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