iac_scan_docker

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the scan is read-only, whether it sends Dockerfiles to an external service, whether the api_key is required, or whether any files are modified. 'Scan' weakly implies a non-destructive read operation, but that is not explicit and the api_key parameter hints at possible external calls.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. Every word contributes to the basic purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented api_key parameter, this description is too thin. It does not clarify how directories are scanned, whether recursion is used, what the scan returns, or how this tool differs from overlapping container/IaC siblings. An agent could select the tool but would lack enough context to invoke it confidently.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. The 'directory' parameter is already described in the schema, and the 'api_key' parameter is undocumented both in the schema and in the description. The phrase 'Scan Dockerfiles' maps vaguely to 'directory' but does not compensate for the missing api_key explanation.

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 ('Scan') and a specific resource ('Dockerfiles') with a clear goal ('security issues and best practices'). This distinguishes it from the sibling IaC scanners that target Terraform or Kubernetes, such as iac_scan_terraform and iac_scan_k8s.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like container_audit_dockerfile, container_scan_compose, or iac_scan_k8s. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision criteria stated, so an agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and the word 'Dockerfiles'.

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