dokploy_docker_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that removeImage requires all three identifiers and that force is optional, and it explains a workflow (read values from getImages). However, it does not state consequences of removing an image, permission requirements, or what getImageConfig returns, leaving some behavior implied by the action names.

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?

Three sentences pack the action inventory, parameter requirements, an example, and a sibling-tool pointer with zero filler. The most important scoping statement ('Docker image inventory') is front-loaded.

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 multi-action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers each action's parameters and routing to the sibling tool. It is missing only minor behavioral details such as return shape for getImageConfig and removal side effects, but an agent has enough to call the tool 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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by showing a concrete imageRef example ('nginx:latest'), specifying that removeImage needs all three of repository/tag/id, and noting that they should be read off getImages — a dependency not visible in 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?

The description opens with 'Docker image inventory' and enumerates three specific actions (getImages, getImageConfig, removeImage), each with a clear verb and target resource. It distinguishes this tool from dokploy_docker by pointing disk-usage and build-cache operations there.

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?

It gives explicit per-action usage: getImages for listing, getImageConfig with imageRef, and removeImage with the mandatory triplet repository/tag/id read from getImages, plus optional force/serverId. It also names dokploy_docker getDiskUsage/getBuildCache/pruneBuildCache as the alternative for disk usage and build cache, so an agent knows when not to use this tool.

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