Dpanel Image Build Prune

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two most decision-critical traits: the operation is destructive (破坏性) and requires confirm=true. It stops short of stating what exactly is removed (build cache only vs. dangling artifacts), whether the effect is reversible, or what the response reports.

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?

A single sentence with the destructive warning front-loaded and the confirmation requirement packed into a short parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though a clause on scope would have justified slightly more length.

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 no explanation, and for a one-parameter tool the coverage is close to adequate. The remaining gap is that a destructive, annotation-free operation should define its blast radius (which caches, any workspace/image coupling), which is left unstated.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the schema documents only the default (false). The description compensates by naming the parameter and its required value (confirm=true), which is exactly the semantic an agent needs to avoid a failed or accidental call.

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 ("清理构建缓存" / prune build cache), which is a genuinely distinct target from dpanel_image_prune or dpanel_image_build_delete. However, it never names or contrasts those adjacent siblings, so the agent must infer the scope boundary itself.

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 when-to-use guidance beyond the destructive flag. It does not say when build-cache pruning is appropriate versus dpanel_image_prune or dpanel_image_build_delete, nor whether it is a routine maintenance operation or an escalation.

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