scan_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool pulls and analyzes images, implying network usage, but does not detail potential side effects like large data transfers, authentication needs, or performance impact. The read-only nature is not explicitly confirmed.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses clear language. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to read.

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 a scanning tool with an output schema, the description mentions the normalized findings format, which partially covers output. However, it does not address potential failures (e.g., image not found, pull errors), time/network costs, or how it differs from sibling tools like scan_all. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds context for the image_ref parameter with example formats (e.g., nginx:1.25) and explains the tool's purpose container-specific, but other parameters like scanner_name and min_severity are adequately covered by schema descriptions. The added value is marginal.

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 tool scans container images for vulnerabilities and secrets, uses Trivy/Grype, and returns normalized findings. It specifies the resource (container image) and the action (scan, pull, analyze). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like scan_all or scan_vulnerabilities, which may have overlapping scope.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases. An agent would have to infer usage context from the tool name and examples alone.

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