x80_dos_run

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

The description discloses useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: fresh-sandbox isolation, propagation of the DOS AH=4Ch AL value as the exit code, a measured rc=7 example, and the ambiguity of rc=1. However, it references exit_code_meaning, which is not present in the input schema, creating potential confusion.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core behavior, and the second adds the most important caveat and sibling differentiation. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 tool with 12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and sparse annotations, this description is too thin. It does not explain arguments, environment, file inputs, assertions, collection behavior, timeouts, sandbox retention, or return values. It captures the central exit-code nuance but leaves too much for the agent to infer or discover elsewhere.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% with 12 parameters, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters, but it does not. It introduces the vague term 'DOS package' and references a non-existent exit_code_meaning field, while core parameters like program and profile are already documented in the schema. It adds little semantic value for the many other parameters.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Run one DOS package to completion in a fresh sandbox.' It also explicitly contrasts itself with x80_cpm_run, making its role among siblings immediately clear.

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?

It directly differentiates from x80_cpm_run by noting that this tool has a meaningful exit code, and it explains the rc=1 ambiguity and how exit_code_meaning resolves it. This gives an agent a concrete selection criterion, though it does not discuss other sibling tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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