prune_docker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses the destructive nature (`Ação destrutiva`), global scope (`escopo GLOBAL`), and the confirmation requirement. No contradictions with structured data.

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 paragraph, front-loaded with the action and purpose, includes a warning emoji, and provides the alternative. It is slightly verbose due to Portuguese phrasing, but overall efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description covers purpose, scope, safety, required input, and alternative. It does not explain return values, but that is not critical for a prune tool. The description is adequately complete for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and already describes the `confirm` parameter as obligatory with exact value 'CONFIRMO'. The description adds context about why it is needed (destructive action), but this is marginal added value. Baseline 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 specifies the verb (executes `docker system prune`), the resource (entire server via Easypanel), and the effect (removes stopped containers, unused networks, build cache, unreferenced images). It also distinguishes from the sibling `cleanup_docker_images` by noting it is a global, heavier cleanup.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (for global cleanup) and when to use the alternative (`cleanup_docker_images` for lighter cleanup). Also provides a clear warning about destructive scope and the required confirmation string.

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