docker_images

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

With no provided annotations, the description has the full burden of disclosing behavioral aspects such as whether this refreshes the image list from a registry (local only) or network calls. Stating 'List Docker images' implies a safe, read-only operation. While it does not explicitly mention side effects or permissions, its simplicity makes it easy to infer that no state modification occurs, aligning with typical list operations.

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, terse sentence with no fluff or unnecessary details. It front-loads the action ('List') and clearly identifies the target ('Docker images'). While simple, it earns its keep by being immediately scannable, though it sacrifices a bit of detail on scope (e.g., local vs remote images) that might be useful.

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 that this is a list operation with no parameters and a simple purpose, the description is mostly complete for a basic understanding. However, there is no mention of what output is returned (e.g., image tags, sizes, etc.) despite having an output schema. The context of sibling tools like docker_inspect suggests more detailed alternatives exist, but this tool's description does not reference them or clarify its bounded scope.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (since there are none to cover). The description does not need to add parameter documentation since there are no parameters to document. The lack of parameters is consistent with the description, but no additional semantic value is added beyond what the schema already implies.

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 'List Docker images' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (Docker images), which provides a basic understanding of the tool's purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like docker_ps (which lists containers) or docker_volumes (which lists volumes), missing an opportunity to differentiate based on the resource type. It is functional but lacks the specificity to stand out among many Docker inspection tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools such as docker_ps for containers or docker_inspect for detailed information. The description implies basic listing functionality but does not mention filtering, output format, or contexts where this tool is preferred over more specialized list-like tools. The absence of any usage cues means an AI agent receives no strategic direction.

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