list_all_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not state whether results are paginated, filtered, sorted, or what fields each image entry contains. The read-only nature is only weakly implied by the verb "List".

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 four-word sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. For a zero-parameter tool this is an appropriate size.

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?

The tool is simple and has no output schema to describe, but with no annotations and no parameter info, the description is the only carrier of context and it says nothing about result shape, ordering, or how it differs from list_images. It is minimally 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already communicates.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("List ... Docker images"), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish this tool from the sibling list_images or list_containers_by_image, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which listing tool is appropriate.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the closely named sibling list_images. The agent is left to infer the selection criteria entirely.

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