dosbox_status

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

There are no annotations and no annotation contradiction. With no annotations, the description alone does not disclose whether this is a side-effect/query, permission requirements, or what resources it touches. The term 'debugger state' is vague.

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?

A single sentence 'Report DOSBox-X run and debugger state.' is concise, but it is under-specified; it lacks parameters, output details, and any behavioral nuances, making it minimally useful.

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?

An output schema exists but the description does not explain return values or semantics. The sibling tools suggest a broad debugger domain, but no context helps the agent decide exactly what this 'report' yields. No description of side effects, preconditions, or related state.

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 takes 0 parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 says 'Report DOSBox-X run and debugger state' but lacks a specific verb-object or resource to define what is being returned. It does not distinguish this tool from the many debugger-related siblings, such as dosbox_pause or dosbox_break.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool, what state information is expected, or how it relates to sibling debugger actions (pause, reset, send_keys, etc.).

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