arcane_prune_system

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'prune' and 'clean up unused resources,' which implies a destructive operation, but it does not disclose what resources are actually removed (containers, images, volumes, networks), whether running resources are safe, or whether the operation is irreversible.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action immediately. It is reasonably concise, though phrases like 'system-wide' and 'on an environment' create some redundancy and could be tightened.

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 this is a destructive system-wide operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should explain what gets pruned, whether the action is reversible, any safety checks, and what the expected result is. The current description leaves critical context missing.

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 input schema is 100% covered, with a single parameter environmentId described as 'The environment ID.' The description adds minimal meaning by linking the prune to 'an environment,' but it does not elaborate on how the parameter is used or any constraints. The schema already carries the parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 uses a clear verb ('prune') and resource ('unused resources') and implies a broad scope ('system-wide' or 'environment'-wide). It distinguishes from sibling tools like arcane_prune_images, arcane_prune_volumes, and arcane_prune_networks by targeting the whole environment, though the exact scope of 'system-wide' vs 'environment' remains somewhat ambiguous.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the more specific prune tools (e.g., arcane_prune_images) or when to avoid it. It only states what it does, not under what conditions it should be chosen over alternatives.

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