Docker Image Rm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully flags the operation as a dangerous write (危险写操作), which is the single most important safety fact for a delete tool. However, it discloses nothing about irreversibility, whether images in use by containers are blocked, or how the force parameter changes behavior.

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 short sentence that is fully front-loaded with the action and its most critical characteristic. It is efficient and wastes nothing, though it is arguably under-specified rather than elegantly concise.

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 no explanation. But for a destructive 6-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is too thin: it omits the meaning of force, the effect on running containers, and any recovery path. An agent could invoke it but lacks enough context to do so safely.

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%, above the 80% threshold, so the schema already documents most parameters (host, port, scheme, profile, image_ref). The description adds no parameter meaning at all, and notably the undocumented 'force' parameter is left entirely unexplained in both places. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (删除 Docker 镜像 = delete a Docker image), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like docker_container_rm or docker_images, leaving the agent to infer scope 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as docker_image_inspect or docker_images, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. The agent must infer all usage context from the tool name.

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