registry_list_images

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions optional namespace scoping, which is already in the parameter schema. It omits important traits like pagination, sorting, rate limits, or permissions, making the agent rely on assumptions.

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 sentence of 8 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose without waste. It is front-loaded but could potentially add more detail without harming conciseness.

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 the tool has three optional filters and an output schema exists, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the impact of parameters like 'name' or 'region', nor what default behavior is when no parameters are provided. The output schema likely covers return structure, but the description lacks operational context.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the description adds minimal value beyond restating namespace scoping. It does not explain parameter interactions or provide examples, but it is consistent with schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'List container images, optionally scoped to a namespace.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (container images), and distinguishes from sibling tools like registry_list_tags (which lists tags for an image) and registry_get_image (single image).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and potential sibling comparisons.

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