scan_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses that scanning is asynchronous by returning a job ID, and implies that results need to be fetched later via another tool (scan_status). This is good behavioral transparency for a non-annotated tool.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded: first sentence defines purpose and resource, second sentence adds key behavioral note about job ID. No wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, async nature, and job ID tracking. However, it could mention that the job ID is used with scan_status or get_findings, but that is implicit from sibling names.

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 covers both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline is 3. However, the description uses the tool's purpose to imply that the image parameter is the primary input, and mentions mode options, earning a 4 due to clarity in context.

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 scans Docker/OCI images for vulnerabilities, with a specific verb 'scan' and resource 'Docker/OCI container image'. It also notes it returns a job ID for tracking, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scan_status which presumably retrieves results.

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 implies usage for vulnerability scanning but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like check_package or scan_status. Sibling tools exist but no guidance on when to choose scan_image over them is provided.

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