gatekeeper_check_image_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safe, side-effect-free nature of the tool. The description adds that the check is against the local image store, which clarifies it won't contact remote registries. It does not describe the response/return format or what happens when an image is absent, so there is a small gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. The 'Wizard helper' prefix is slightly redundant but adds context. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only check with rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it states what it checks and when to use it. The main missing piece is the format of the image parameter, which the schema also fails to document. Overall it provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly within the wizard flow.

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 explain the 'image' parameter, but it only restates the parameter name. It does not specify whether 'image' is a name, ID, tag, or registry path, or provide format examples. This is a meaningful gap for an agent selecting the correct value.

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 ('check') and resource ('whether an image is available locally') and ties it to a clear purpose ('before attempting container creation'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like gatekeeper_pull_image and gatekeeper_delete_image because it only checks availability rather than modifying images.

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 states when to use it: before attempting container creation, which is a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'before container creation' phrase implies a preflight role. It does not mention when to pull first, so it is not full guidance.

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