list_cached_images

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the context 'from the local cache registry' and the READ tag, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, performance, pagination). With rich annotations, the description adds some value but not substantial context.

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 extremely concise: a one-line lead '[READ]' and two parameter lines. No wasted words, and the most critical information (verb, resource, filters) is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool has 2 optional parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the core function (listing images with filters) adequately. It does not detail ordering or limits, but with an output schema the return format is already defined. A score of 4 reflects sufficient completeness for a list tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful descriptions for both parameters: 'Filter by extension' with an example for image_type, and 'Filter by datastore name' for datastore. This adds clear semantics beyond the schema, earning a 4.

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 states 'List images from the local cache registry' with a clear verb and resource. It includes filtering parameters but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'scan_datastore_images' which may also list images. A score of 4 reflects clear purpose but lack of sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'browse_datastore' or 'scan_datastore_images'. There are no 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' instructions, and no mention of prerequisites or best practices.

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