Build an image

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuine context: network/disk consumption, a required human confirmation, and output truncation behavior ('its end when long'). It stops short of stating permissions or failure/reversibility semantics, but adds real value beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the behavioral caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical about truncation is slightly tucked away rather than prominent.

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, return values are already covered, and the description adds the operational constraints an agent most needs (network/disk use, human confirmation). It is nearly complete, missing only build-arg and cache-handling nuance for the two undocumented parameters.

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 60%, with tag, context, and dockerfile documented in the schema while noCache and buildArgs are undescribed. The description only loosely restates context/dockerfile ('local folder with a Dockerfile') without syntax or defaults, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 (build), resource (image), source (local folder with a Dockerfile), and an additional effect (tag it). This clearly distinguishes it from registry-oriented siblings like pull_image and tag_image; an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a caution ('Uses the network and disk: confirm with the person first'), which implies a precondition, but never states when to use build_image versus pull_image or run_container, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly framed.

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