Image Inspect Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not say what category of details is returned, whether the image must exist locally vs in a registry, or whether it triggers any network/registry access, which matters for an inspect call on an image name or tag.

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?

One short front-loaded sentence with no waste, but 'detailed information' is vague filler rather than substance. It is concise to the point of being under-specified for the ambiguity it leaves around image_list_tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover read-only safety. However, for a tool sitting among image_list_tool, image_pull_tool, and image_rm_tool, the description should at minimum state that this inspects a single existing image rather than listing or fetching it; that routing context is missing.

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 100% and the single 'name' parameter is documented as accepting an image name, tag, or ID. The description adds no further semantics (e.g., whether digests or partial IDs are accepted), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about an image.' The word 'detailed' implicitly separates it from image_list_tool's summary output, but it never names the sibling or spells out what 'detailed' covers. Clear, yet no explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus image_list_tool (which presumably lists images) or any other sibling. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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