Container Prune Tool

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully scopes the operation to stopped containers (implying running ones are untouched), but omits irreversibility, whether it can be undone, and any permission or safety caveats expected of a destructive prune.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted prose. The 'Returns' block is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is not harmful.

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 is present, so return values are covered, and the description correctly avoids over-explaining them. However, for a destructive removal operation with no annotations, the absence of any warning about irreversibility or scope side effects leaves a meaningful gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no argument surface to explain. Baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove all stopped containers') with a clear scope qualifier ('stopped'), which implicitly distinguishes it from container_rm_tool's targeted removal. It does not name the sibling directly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 scope ('all stopped containers') implies a bulk-cleanup use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to the alternative container_rm_tool for selective removal. Usage is left to inference.

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