Maps DOS conventional memory by walking the MCB chain, reporting which PSP owns each block and showing the full memory layout.
Walk the DOS MCB chain and report which PSP owns which memory block. Shows the full conventional memory layout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating operation, so the bar is lower. The description still contributes real context by disclosing what the tool actually enumerates: a walk of the MCB chain and the PSP-owner-to-block mapping, plus the scope of 'full conventional memory layout'. It stops short of noting edge cases such as fragmented chains, UMBs, or unavailable/terminated PSPs, but adds meaningful behavioral value beyond the annotation.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The operative clause (walk the MCB chain, report PSP ownership) comes first, with the summary of the output scope second. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description must hint at what comes back, and it does: PSP-to-block ownership and the conventional memory layout. Combined with the readOnlyHint and empty parameter schema, an agent has enough to decide and invoke. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the report is raw MCB entries or a rendered map, and any failure conditions when no MCB chain is present.
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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; per the rubric this yields a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies the tool is argument-free and operates on an implicit whole-system scope.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Walk the DOS MCB chain and report which PSP owns which memory block' names the exact mechanism (MCB chain), the mapping produced (PSP → memory block), and the resulting artifact (full conventional memory layout). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling readers like mem_read, mem_search, or screen_text, which operate on bytes or UI rather than DOS memory-manager structures.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose — an agent would infer it should call this when it needs a map of conventional memory ownership rather than raw contents. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no contrast with mem_read/mem_search, and no note about when the MCB walk is valid (e.g. only meaningful inside DOS). Adequate but with a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.