dosbox_capture_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure responsibility. It states it captures the display, implying a read-only operation without side effects, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or any potential limitations (e.g., if display is unavailable). It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the literal act.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, perfectly concise and front-loaded with the action and result.

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 simple capture tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It names the tool's function and output format. It could mention whether it saves to a file or returns inline, but 'as an MCP PNG image' implies the MCP response format. Complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has zero parametersvier, so schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist, but that's 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?

Clear verb (capture), specific resource (current DOSBox-X display), output format (MCP PNG image). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like dosbox_save_state or dosbox_status, which have different purposes.

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 when to use (when a screen capture is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't clarify if there are prerequisites (e.g., running DOSBox-X) or when not to use it. The purpose is clear enough that usage is implied.

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