dosbox_swap_floppy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Advance' implies a mutation but lacks details on side effects (e.g., unmounting previous image, data loss risk, reversibility). It does not contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to add richer context for a write operation.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately clarifies the parameter values. Perfectly concise and structured.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It could be more complete regarding side effects, but given the simplicity and presence of an output schema, it's adequate.

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 schema has one parameter 'drive' with no description and 0% coverage. The description compensates by explicitly mapping drive values 0 and 1 to A: and B:, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. This is sufficient for the single parameter, though it doesn't cover edge cases like invalid values.

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 ('Advance the mounted floppy image') and specifies the resource (floppy image in A: or B:). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on floppy swapping, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage (when you need to advance to the next floppy image) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools. The context is clear from the name, but no exclusions are stated.

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