registry_check_image

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

The description discloses that it 'Returns exists=True/False without raising an error when the image is absent,' which is good behavioral information about safe, non-throwing behavior. However, it does not cover error cases (e.g., network issues, auth failures) or side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 with a front-loaded purpose statement, followed by a clear list of parameters. It is efficient but the Args section could be slightly trimmed if schema descriptions were present. Still, it earns its place with no wasteful sentences.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return behavior (exists=True/False). It covers the essential behavior for a check tool with 7 parameters. However, it lacks details on error handling and connectivity issues, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description provides an Args section explaining each parameter (e.g., registry_type as 'harbor', 'ecr', or 'gar'; image format). This adds meaning beyond the schema, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions and clearly aiding correct invocation.

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 'Check whether a specific image:tag exists in a container registry,' specifying the verb (check), resource (image:tag), and context (container registry). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like registry_list_tags and registry_delete_tag by focusing on existence checking rather than listing or deleting.

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 it is 'Useful for pre-deployment checks and stale image detection,' providing contextual usage guidance. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, the context is clear enough to differentiate from sibling tools.

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