List container images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minor context about optionally including tags but no deeper behavioral details like pagination behavior or response format, though schema covers pagination parameters.

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 short sentence that directly states the resource and optional parameter. No wasted words, fully front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with rich schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is adequate. It does not explain return value structure, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this acceptable.

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 coverage is 83% (only 'tags' lacks a description), so baseline is 3. The phrase 'optionally with tags' adds meaning to the undocumented 'tags' boolean parameter, providing value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource (container registry repositories of a project) and the operation is implied by the title 'List container images'. It distinguishes from siblings since no other tool targets container registries, though it lacks an explicit verb in the description itself.

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 implies usage for a specific project's container registry but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Sibling tools like gitlab_list_packages exist but no differentiation is provided.

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