portainer_image_pull

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the basic 'pull' action by explaining credential handling (Portainer supplies credentials, no password passes through the model), the semantics of registry_id=0 (anonymous), the mutual exclusivity of registry_id and registry_auth, and the exact format of registry_auth (base64 JSON forwarded as X-Registry-Auth). This is rich, actionable behavioral context that prevents misuse.

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 well-structured: a lead paragraph covering the core purpose and credential flow, followed by a clean Args list. Each sentence adds value – no filler. The critical security note ('No password ever passes through the model') is front-loaded. Despite its length, it remains focused and easy to scan.

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 (5 parameters, auth logic, registry resolution) and an output schema existing, the description covers everything needed: how to select a registry, how to pass explicit auth, what defaults exist, and security constraints. There are no apparent gaps that would prevent an agent from calling this correctly.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: the 'Args' section explains every parameter – image_name, tag (with default), registry_id (auto-detected, 0=anonymous), registry_auth (base64 JSON, mutual exclusivity), and endpoint_id (default behavior). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, which only lists names and types.

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 'Pull a Docker image from a registry' – a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like portainer_image_inspect, portainer_image_remove, or portainer_images_list. The scope (registry interaction) is unambiguous, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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 provides strong guidance on how to use the tool correctly: it explains automatic registry detection, when to use registry_id vs registry_auth, and when anonymous pull is appropriate. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools for other image operations (e.g., 'use portainer_images_list to list images'), but the operational context is clear enough for an agent to decide when pulling is needed.

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