validate_dockerfile_syntax

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the cost ('0.015 USDC on Base L2') and the topics the lint checks cover. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the tool returns (e.g., a violations report), or how the paymentSignature participates in execution.

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 one tight, front-loaded sentence: 'Lints Dockerfiles...' immediately states the subject and action. The list of lint categories is specific and useful, and the parenthetical cost is relevant for an agent deciding whether to invoke this paid tool. No words are wasted.

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 tool with no output schema and a generic 'payload' parameter, the description omits two critical facts: what the payload should contain and what kind of result is returned. The cost is stated, but an agent still lacks enough context to correctly structure the invocation or interpret the outcome.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it never explains what the payload should contain (e.g., raw Dockerfile text, a path, or JSON options) or how paymentSignature should be supplied. It neither harms nor substantially helps parameter understanding.

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 ('Lints') and resource ('Dockerfiles'), and enumerates concrete issue categories: non-deterministic tags, missing layers, root execution vulnerabilities, and cache invalidation anti-patterns. It clearly differs from broader sibling tools like validate_code_syntax by being Dockerfile-specific, though it never explicitly names that alternative.

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 intended use case—linting Dockerfiles—is clearly implied by the first sentence. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use this tool, nor any comparison to the closely related sibling validate_code_syntax. An agent must infer the boundary between Dockerfile linting and general code syntax validation.

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