pod_rm_tool

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

The description adds 'and all its containers', which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the bare name ‘pod_rm_tool’. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose other side effects like irreversibility, force requirements (despite the schema), or impact on associated resources (volumes, networks). The statement is truthful but minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently, fully earning its place.

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?

For a simple removal tool, the description covers the core action but omits important context like whether the operation is reversible, whether running pods require force, and what happens to non-container resources. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the destructive nature and prerequisites are not fully addressed.

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 100%, with both 'name' and 'force' clearly described. The tool description does not add beyond the schema, but the schema already carries the semantic load. Baseline of 3 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Remove'), the resource ('a pod'), and the scope ('all its containers'), distinguishing it from container-level removal tools like container_rm_tool. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pod_stop_tool or container_rm_tool. The description implies a destructive removal, but it doesn't clarify that this permanently removes the pod and containers, unlike stopping which preserves them. The context of sibling tools is not leveraged.

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