docker_build

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses timing behavior, timeout handling, and the ability to get a job_id for background builds. It mentions job_status, job_logs, job_wait for later checks. Missing info: potential side effects (e.g., modifying local Docker state), required Docker daemon, authentication needs.

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 paragraph that front-loads the tool name but immediately dives into timing details. It could be more concise by separating the core purpose from usage instructions. The structure is acceptable but not optimal.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, 1 required, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown). The description only covers timing parameters, ignoring the main build operation, required parameter, and other options. It lacks information about return values or error handling. The tool is complex and the description is incomplete.

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 description adds meaning to timing parameters (on_timeout, timeout_seconds, check_after_seconds, poll_interval_seconds, expected_runtime_seconds) but completely neglects core parameters like tag, context, no_cache, build_args, dockerfile. Context is required and not explained. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate.

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 starts with 'Kali Agent MCP tool: docker_build' and mentions 'build' in the context, but does not explicitly state 'Build a Docker image'. The purpose is implied by the tool name and the sibling tools include docker_run, docker_compose, etc. However, a more explicit statement would improve clarity.

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 detailed guidance on selecting timing parameters and using different on_timeout options for long-running or bounded synchronous work. However, it does not compare this tool to siblings like docker_run or docker_compose, nor does it specify when to use docker_build over other image-related tools.

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