docker_interactive_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Kill and remove' explicitly states the destructive nature and identifies the affected resource as an interactive Docker session. It stops short of detailing failure modes or permission requirements, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 or redundancy. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and scope.

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 close tool, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and when to use it. A brief note on where to obtain the session_id (e.g., from docker_interactive_list) would make it more complete, but it is not critically missing.

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 provides only the name 'session_id' with a type and minLength, and the description does not explicitly describe the parameter. However, the phrase 'started with docker_interactive_exec' implies the session ID comes from that flow, giving some contextual meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Kill and remove' with a clear resource type ('interactive Docker session') and explicitly ties it to sessions started with docker_interactive_exec. This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like docker_close or docker_exec_kill.

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 description provides clear usage context by stating the tool is for sessions created via docker_interactive_exec. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives such as docker_close, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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