Get Image Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the enumerated fields (summary, streams, variants, licenses, architectures) duplicate what the output schema almost certainly exposes. No additional behavioral context is offered — no pagination, size, cost, or auth notes. Beyond the annotation, the description adds little.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the verb and resource lead. It is perhaps too terse to carry the routing or parameter nuance, but strictly on conciseness it is efficient.

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 and 100% parameter coverage, the description needn't explain returns or params, and annotations cover safety. The one real gap is selection guidance among the many sibling tools, which leaves it merely adequate rather than complete.

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 100%, so 'name', 'include_readme', and 'readme_max_chars' are fully documented in the schema including examples and defaults. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get an image's metadata') and enumerates the categories returned (summary, streams, variants, licenses, architectures). It implicitly separates itself from tag-level and list-level siblings, though it never names list_images_tool or get_tag_details_tool to make the distinction explicit.

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 call this versus get_tag_details_tool, list_images_tool, or the SBOM/vulnerability siblings. The agent must infer that this is the image-level (not tag-level) lookup without any stated condition or exclusion.

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