Docker Image Audit

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by enumerating the ecosystems checked (node, python, ruby, etc.), which helps set expectations. No contradictory behavior is described.

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 two concise sentences plus two illustrative examples. It front-loads the tool's purpose and supported image types without extraneous detail.

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 read-only scanning tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient information: it states the target files, the types of issues found, and the supported ecosystems. It doesn't describe the result format, but the examples imply a straightforward report, making it adequate for tool selection.

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?

The input schema already fully documents both parameters (project and directory) with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the examples, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Scan' and identifies the resource 'Dockerfile and docker-compose files' with a clear objective ('outdated or EOL base images'). It also lists supported image types, which distinguishes it from generic depsonar_audit or depsonar_scan tools.

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 includes example user queries that should trigger this tool, such as 'Check my Docker images' and 'Any EOL images in my projects?', providing clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools, but its scope is well-defined.

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