Nodepool Images

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds that the output includes build status and upload artifacts, which gives useful context about the data scope beyond the schema. No behavioral claims contradict 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?

The description is two sentences plus a one-line Args section, front-loaded with the purpose. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 a simple list operation, an output schema to define return data, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential use case and the single parameter's default source. The tool's behavior is fully specified for an agent to invoke 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 compensate. It explains the 'tenant' parameter as a tenant name and states that it defaults from the environment, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare string type and empty default. This is sufficient for a single optional parameter.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List nodepool disk images') and adds scope ('with build status and upload artifacts'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_nodes or list_pipelines, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage by stating the tool lists images, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or any exclusions. For a straightforward list tool, this is adequate but not exemplary; no comparison to sibling tools is offered.

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