dosbox_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden, but it only names the action. It does not disclose preconditions (e.g., whether execution must be paused), side effects, idempotency, or error behavior.

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 focused sentence with no wasted words, placing the key verb first. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter control operation.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it omits the essential paused-state precondition and any behavioral caveats. The presence of sibling tools like dosbox_pause provides context, but the description itself remains thin.

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 parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100%, so the description has no parameter behavior to clarify. The baseline score of 4 applies because there is nothing additional the description could meaningfully add.

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 the action ('Resume') and the target resource ('DOSBox-X execution'), making the purpose explicit. It is distinguishable from the sibling dosbox_pause by being its inverse, though it does not explicitly name that relationship.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, such as 'after dosbox_pause' or 'to continue a paused session.' The usage context is only implied by the verb 'resume,' and no alternative tools are mentioned or excluded.

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