build_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 of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about permissions required, side effects, whether the Dockerfile parameter is raw content or a path, or what happens to existing images with the same name.

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?

At two words, the text is short but under-specified rather than concise. It lacks the front-loaded actionable detail needed to help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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?

A tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema requires substantially more description. The current definition leaves the agent unable to determine how to call it correctly or what to expect in return.

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% for three required parameters (dockerfile, name, path). The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent with no guidance on formats, constraints, or relationships between them.

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 "Build image" is a tautological restatement of the tool name. It does not distinguish this operation from siblings like pull_image, load_image, commit_container, or build_openresty, nor does it specify what kind of image is being built.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as pull_image, load_image, or commit_container. The agent receives no context about prerequisites or scenarios that call for building an image from a Dockerfile.

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