docker/images

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that untagged layers are hidden unless all:true, how untagged images render (<none>:<none>), that it always runs as root with no privileged argument, and that it is refused unless the grant has allowed:true. That is auth and filtering behavior the readOnly/idempotent hints do not convey.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then filtering semantics, then output shape, then routing and auth. Information-dense, but it is one long paragraph and the root/refusal clause is buried at the end when it is a critical operational constraint.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing both the text format (tag lines with ID | Size | Created) and the JSON object shape, plus empty-result behavior ([]). Combined with sibling routing and the root requirement, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: pattern is a glob over tag or repository with concrete examples, all:true controls intermediate/untagged visibility, and output_format's array is itemized by field (id, full_id, repo_tags, size_bytes, containers, labels). Field-level return detail exceeds the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (Docker images) with scope (on the local socket via Engine API) and enumerates what is returned (tags, ID, size, creation time). It also carves itself out from siblings by naming docker/prune, docker/containers and the docker-image inspect resource.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: deletion goes to docker/prune (target images, dangling only), containers go to docker/containers, and per-image config goes to the docker-image:// resource. The when-to-use boundary is unambiguous.

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