security_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Scan a Docker image for vulnerabilities', leaving unclear whether the scan pulls the image, updates vulnerability databases, requires network access, modifies state, or what the response contains. The verb 'scan' weakly implies a read-only operation, but that is not stated explicitly.

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, compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action ('Scan') and resource ('a Docker image') immediately, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 two simple parameters fully documented in the schema and a straightforward purpose, the description is minimally sufficient for calling the tool. However, there is no output schema and no indication of what the scan returns, how results are formatted, or whether the scan triggers side effects like pulling the image. For a security scanning tool, the output is central, so this gap prevents a higher score.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'image' and 'verbose' have sufficient descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan'), a clear resource ('a Docker image'), and an explicit intent ('for vulnerabilities'). It is immediately distinguishable from all sibling tools, which are container, network, volume, and compose operations; none overlap with security scanning.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative-routing guidance is given, but the description clearly establishes the context: use this when you need to assess a Docker image for vulnerabilities. Since no sibling tool offers a similar scanning capability, the boundary between this tool and alternatives is self-evident.

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