image_inspect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Display' but does not state what 'detailed information' includes, how it handles invalid image names, or whether it requires authentication. The limited transparency is a gap for a tool that could output significant metadata.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and directly expresses the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.

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 tool has only one parameter and no output schema, a very brief description might be minimally viable. However, 'detailed information' is vague and does not clarify what specifics will be returned (e.g., config, layers, environment). For an inspect tool, this lack of detail could hinder an agent from knowing whether the output meets its needs, so the description is adequate but not 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?

The schema describes the only parameter ('image' as 'Image name or ID') with full coverage. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, but since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Display detailed information about a container image.' It uses a specific verb ('Display') and resource ('container image'), making it unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'container_inspect' or 'list_images', so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or mention of alternative tools are provided. The usage is only implied by the tool name and description, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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