podman_image_pull

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses that the operation is blocking ('會等到拉完' - waits until done) and warns about timeout for large images. This adds valuable behavioral context not captured by annotations, though it does not mention side effects like modifying the local image store.

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 succinct sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral warning. Every word is useful, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

While the tool is relatively simple and has an output schema, the description lacks parameter guidance, which is essential given the 0% schema description coverage. The timeout warning is helpful, but without explaining what 'reference' should contain (e.g., image name and tag), the description is incomplete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. However, it does not explain any of the three parameters (reference, policy, tls_verify), leaving the agent without crucial information such as how to format the image reference or what policy values mean. This is a critical gap.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: '從 registry 拉 image' (pull image from registry). It distinguishes from sibling tools like podman_images (list images) and podman_ps, making it unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use the tool—for pulling images from a registry—and adds an important usage caveat about blocking until completion and timeout for large images. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, which would justify a higher score.

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