push_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the need for prior docker login and that credentials are not accepted, which is useful. It implies tagging and pushing, but does not detail error behavior, network requirements, or potential side effects like modifying local image tags.

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 with a concise main sentence followed by bullet-like Args section. It is slightly longer than necessary but front-loaded with the primary action. Every part adds value.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not provided), the description omits any mention of return values or success/failure responses. It also lacks details on idempotency or behavior if the image already exists. It is adequate for a simple push operation but could be more complete.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description effectively documents all three parameters with clear explanations and examples. Each argument (local_image, repository, image_tag) is described in a way that adds meaning beyond the schema's property definitions.

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 tags a local Docker image and pushes it to a registry, with examples and distinction from sibling tools like build_image and delete_image. The verb 'push' and resource 'image' are specific, and the examples clarify the 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 mentions the prerequisite of prior docker login and that credentials are not accepted, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no comparison to siblings like deploy_stack or build_image.

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