container_obituary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by stating the output format (markdown) and the deterministic nature of the cause-of-death rules, plus the fact that final words come from last log lines. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the tool is likely read-only in spirit, and the disclosed behavior is specific and helpful.

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 a single sentence that packs in the tool's purpose, content, and return format without redundancy. The key verb and resource are front-loaded, and every clause adds meaning. Nothing is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input, the behavioral rules, and the output format. It does not mention edge cases like what happens if the container is not dead or has no logs, but these are minor for a playful utility. Overall it is adequately complete.

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 input schema already documents the only parameter ('container name or id to mourn') at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the playful context 'to mourn' but no extra technical detail beyond what the schema provides. That is acceptable for a single well-documented parameter.

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 ('Write') and a clear resource ('obituary for a dead Docker container'), and enumerates the exact content (identity, lifespan, cause of death, final words). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like container_autopsy, which presumably analyzes container internals, and git_sins, which is unrelated.

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 implies the tool is for dead containers and mentions the deterministic cause-of-death rules, which gives context on when it applies. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare it to container_autopsy, leaving some ambiguity about which tool an agent should pick for a live container or a deeper forensic analysis.

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