Code MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Build a Docker image' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description lacks details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., disk usage), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent 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?

Given the complexity of building Docker images (a mutation operation with 8 parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for any gaps.

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 with a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('Docker image from a Dockerfile'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_dockerfile' or 'docker_run', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'docker_run' (for running images) and 'generate_dockerfile' (for creating Dockerfiles), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for 'docker_build'.

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