Docker remove

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that this is destructive. It adds the precondition that the container should be stopped, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema, but it does not explain what happens if a running container is passed or whether removal is irreversible beyond the annotation.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the key action and target resource. There is no wasted wording, though the under-specification in other dimensions prevents a perfect conciseness score.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the bare description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks explicit guidance about handling running containers, and the single parameter is not semantically enriched, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool 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?

The schema has one required parameter, 'container', with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description repeats that a container is removed but does not clarify whether the value should be a container ID, name, or how to identify the container, so the parameter remains under-specified.

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 states a specific action ('Remove') and resource ('container'), plus the relevant state condition ('stopped'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like docker_start, docker_stop, and docker_restart, which perform different lifecycle operations.

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 word 'stopped' implies the tool is for containers that are not running, which hints at when to use it, but it does not explicitly say 'use docker_stop first for running containers' or name alternatives. The usage guidance is therefore only implied, not explicit.

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