system_logout

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description discloses that it drops an in-memory cache, does not affect persistent state, and relies on a private docker-py attribute with a defined fallback behavior if internals change. This goes well beyond the annotations and provides honest side-effect disclosure.

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 fairly long but well-structured with a clear main purpose, explanatory paragraphs, and an Args/Returns format. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded, though some sentences could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 explicitly documents the return as a dict with a 'cleared' list of removed keys. It covers edge cases (no registry, key mismatch, internal attribute changes) and the tool's non-contact with the daemon/host config, making it complete for an agent to call correctly.

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 schema only specifies 'registry' with type string and default null, with no description coverage. The description's Args section explains the meaning of the parameter, the None case (clear all), and the key matching requirement (including Docker Hub's 'docker.io' key). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 identifies the verb 'clear' and the resource 'cached registry credentials' from the in-memory Docker client, and explicitly contrasts with system_login and alternative clearing methods. This makes it unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 states what the tool does and what it does not do (does not contact the daemon or touch config.json), and mentions that system_close/system_reconnect also clear the cache. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over those alternatives, though the functional difference implies it.

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