container_autopsy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what data is collected (exit code, OOM state, restart count, uptime, last log lines) and what is returned (a markdown autopsy report with cause and fix), making the tool's read-only, diagnostic nature strongly implied. It does not explicitly rule out side effects or mention permissions, but the described behavior is transparent enough for safe invocation.

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 with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Diagnose WHY... not just THAT...'), followed by a compact list of collected data and the output format. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by explaining the return value: a markdown autopsy report with cause of death and exact fix. It also covers inputs implicitly through the listed collected data and mentions the running-container case. Minor gaps like failure modes or Docker daemon prerequisites prevent a perfect score, but the tool is well-specified for typical use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description mentions 'last log lines' which maps to the tail parameter, but it adds no new detail about parameters beyond what the schema provides. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Diagnose') with a concrete resource ('a Docker container') and clearly scopes the purpose: determining WHY it died rather than merely that it died. It also differentiates from the sibling container_obituary by emphasizing cause analysis and the exact fix, not just recording the death.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a container died and you need the cause and fix, not just a death notification. It also notes it works on running containers, broadening applicability, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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