volume_prune

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it removes 'unused' volumes, but does not clarify what 'unused' means (e.g., volumes not referenced by any container). It adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 short and to the point, but it includes Python docstring style (args/returns) that may not be ideal for an AI agent reading a natural language description. It is concise but could be better structured (e.g., using full sentences). No wasted words, but also no enrichment.

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 no output schema, the description does mention the return format ('dict with info on deleted volumes and reclaimed space'), which is useful. However, it does not explain what 'unused' means or provide examples of filters. Given the tool is simple (one parameter), this is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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 single parameter 'filters' is described only as 'Filters to apply' in the description, which is a tautology. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining what filters are available or how they work, but it does not. This provides no meaningful guidance for the agent.

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 'Remove unused volumes' clearly states the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like volume_remove (which removes specific volumes) or volume_list (which lists volumes). The word 'unused' hints at the distinction but lacks explicit contrast.

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 volume_prune versus alternatives like volume_remove or other prune tools (e.g., image_prune). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use the tool, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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