Docker Container Rm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does flag the operation as a dangerous write and discloses the force semantics (running containers are killed), which is genuine behavioral value. It stops short of stating irreversibility, what happens to container data/volumes, or any permission requirements.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the destructive nature and then the force behavior; every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a destructive tool with no annotations, the description covers the danger and the force flag, which is the minimum an agent needs to call it safely; the absence of sibling routing is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the one undocumented property (force) is precisely the one the description explains, adding meaning the schema does not provide. The host/port/scheme/profile params are already documented in the schema and need no further prose.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (删除容器 / delete a container), so the agent immediately knows the operation. It does not, however, distinguish this from the many sibling tools such as docker_container_action (which can stop/restart containers) or docker_image_rm, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 parenthetical gives real conditional guidance for the force flag (force=True forcibly deletes a running container), which is the key usage decision for this tool. It offers no when-to-use-vs-alternatives framing, e.g. no pointer to docker_container_action for stopping first or a warning to prefer a graceful stop before removal.

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