Dpanel Container Prune

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the two most important traits: '破坏性' (destructive/irreversible) and the heavy precondition '需 confirm=true'. It stops short of saying whether all stopped containers are affected (e.g. dangling-only filtering) or what happens if confirm is false.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, then the risk, then the precondition. Nothing is padded and no clause is redundant.

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 exists, so return values need not be described, and the terse form covers the essentials for a destructive operation. The remaining gap is scope precision (which stopped containers, whether recovery is possible), but it is minor for a pruning tool.

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 single boolean parameter 'confirm' has 0% schema description coverage and a default of false, and the description supplies the missing semantics: it must be true for the operation to proceed. That is real added meaning, though the default/omission behavior is left unexplained.

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 with a scope qualifier: 清理 (prune) 停止的容器 (stopped containers). An agent can immediately tell this removes stopped containers rather than running ones. It does not, however, differentiate itself from other destructive siblings such as dpanel_container_delete.

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?

Usage is only implied by the scope phrase 'stopped containers', which does distinguish it from volume/image/network prune siblings by resource. It names no alternative and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it stays at the minimum-viable level.

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