Nodepool Images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'List' verb is consistent. However, the description adds only modest context (build history, provider uploads) beyond the annotations, fulfilling the minimum but not going further.

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 extremely concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and the Args section is efficiently structured. No superfluous text.

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 presence of an output schema (handling return values) and the tool's simplicity (one optional param), the description adequately covers what the tool does and how the parameter works. Minor omission: no mention of error cases or permission requirements, but acceptable for a read-only list tool.

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 0%, and the description's Args section explains the tenant parameter's default behavior ('uses default if empty'), adding value the schema alone does not provide. This compensates for lack of schema documentation.

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 'List' and resource 'nodepool disk images' with details about build status and upload artifacts. It clearly distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_builds or list_nodes.

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 for viewing available base images for job nodes but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its many siblings or any prerequisites. No exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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