infra_prune_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is destructive, requires confirm=true, and explains the risk of all_images (removes any image not used by a running container). It stops short of describing all side effects, but covers the key behavioral traits.

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 two sentences plus a compact list. It is front-loaded with the purpose, contains no filler, and every phrase adds value.

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 the simple tool (2 params, no required, no enums) and presence of an output schema, the description provides a complete picture: purpose, target options with risk, and confirmation requirement. It doesn't discuss output, but that is covered by the output schema.

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 0%, and the description compensates by enumerating valid target values and their meaning, plus the confirm requirement. It doesn't fully explain what happens when confirm=false, but the requirement is clear.

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 the specific verb 'Reclaim' with resource 'docker disk space' and enumerates concrete target types, making the tool's function unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like infra_status_tool or infra_disk_tool.

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 states the core scenario ('Reclaim docker disk space') and provides guidance on target selection with risk levels (e.g., 'build_cache (safest)' vs 'all_images (riskier)'). It also mentions the required confirmation flag. However, it does not explicitly call out alternative tools or when not to use it.

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