docker_build

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: a confirm gate is required, context must be in an allowed host folder or an https git URL, and build args leak into image history. It omits whether the build blocks/streams, timeout behavior, and whether an existing tag is overwritten.

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?

Front-loads the action and the confirm requirement, then documents the two required parameters in compact sentences. The security warning is a worthwhile addition; nothing is redundant, though the formatting is slightly fragmented.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a 10-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations, missing explanation of target (multi-stage builds), platform, and no_cache leaves meaningful invocation ambiguity. The safety-critical parts are covered; the optional-flag semantics are not.

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 0% across 10 parameters, and the description explains only context (formats, constraints), tag (image name example), dockerfile (path inside context), and build_args (secret-leak warning). Optional parameters host, pull, target, no_cache, and platform remain completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 — 'Build an image with docker build' — which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like docker_pull_image or docker_run, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Provides a hard prerequisite ('Needs confirm=true') and restricts context to an allowed folder or https git URL, which is real usage guidance, but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to docker_create, docker_run, or docker_pull_image.

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