check_image_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the main behavior (comparison and update type) but lacks details on error handling, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only. The transparency is adequate for a simple check tool.

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 with no superfluous information. The first sentence directly states the purpose, followed by a brief mechanism and a use case. Minimally sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity (2 simple params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, use case, and output nature (update type). It omits exact return format, but the mention of 'tells you' and 'major, minor, or patch' provides enough context for agent selection.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds value by implying semantic versioning (major/minor/patch) and the context of comparing to 'latest available version,' which goes beyond the schema's examples.

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 the tool checks if a newer version of a container image is available by comparing a current tag to the latest version, and reports the update type (major, minor, patch). This distinct purpose is differentiated from sibling tools like get_latest_image_tag and search_images.

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 a clear usage scenario: auditing Dockerfiles or Kubernetes manifests for outdated images. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for comparison.

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