docker_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at scope ('local', 'on a Docker host') but says nothing about permissions or Docker socket/API access requirements, whether the image list can be large or slow, or whether host state is touched. Listing is inherently read-only, but that is left implicit.

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?

One short sentence with zero padding, and the essential scope qualifier ('local') is included up front. It is efficient but too sparse to earn a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a single well-documented parameter keeps the signature simple. What is missing is usage context (when to prefer this over docker_ps) and any behavioral note, leaving the definition minimal but functional.

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?

There is a single parameter ('server') and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, so schema description coverage sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming guidance for the server argument beyond what the schema states.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List local Docker images'), which is enough to distinguish it from docker_ps (containers), docker_logs, and docker_stats in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name any sibling or state how it differs from them, so it stops short of a 5.

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 docker_ps, docker_stats, or run_command, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the way to enumerate images rather than containers.

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