Check Dockerfiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description usefully discloses the output shape ('Findings have line and fix'), which tells the agent how results are structured and how many checks it performs.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the verb and then lists check categories efficiently. Every clause maps to a real capability, though the run-on list of checks is slightly hard to parse.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is complete about what is checked, missing only usage routing and any explanation of the required 'files' input.

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 only 50%: 'platform' is documented in the schema, but the required 'files' array (with its nested path/content objects, maxItems 20, and size limits) has no description anywhere. The description adds zero parameter guidance, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Checks Dockerfiles') and then enumerates concrete check categories — syntax, build breakers, root users, secrets, cache order, registry/EOL checks — so an agent knows exactly what the tool inspects. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling image_info, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied by the scope of checks; there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus image_info or any precondition (e.g. that files must be supplied inline). The agent can guess the context but gets no routing guidance.

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