inspect_memory_dump

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the non-destructive nature, the use of docker stats, and the optional inclusion of process list. It does not disclose permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only tool this is acceptable.

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 concise and well-structured: a short summary, then usage notes, then a structured Args section, and finally Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers inputs, outputs, and behavioral details. Could mention error handling for non-running containers, but that's minor.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It clearly describes 'container_id' as the container ID or name, and 'include_processes' with its effect (runs ps aux). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states it returns live memory, CPU stats, and top processes for a container. The verb 'inspect' combined with the resource 'memory_dump' is apt, and the description distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'execute_isolated_script' and 'stream_container_logs'.

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 explicitly notes the container must be running and that it uses a point-in-time snapshot. It also clarifies that it's not a real heap dump, which prevents misuse. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs the siblings, though the context is clear enough.

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