dosbox_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), and the description adds genuine return-value behavior: the conditional status.archive field that appears only while a mount waits on an archive, with its activity/byte-count subfields. That conditional-field disclosure is real context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the conditional archive detail. The third sentence is dense but earns its place by explaining a non-obvious return field.

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 carries the return-value burden and does convey the headline fields (program, mount, version) plus the conditional archive field. It doesn't enumerate the full response shape, leaving a modest gap for a status tool with no schema.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document and the description correctly ignores parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific resource and enumerates what it reports: running program, mount status, version. Distinguishes itself as the machine-state snapshot tool. It stops short of naming the adjacent siblings (session_info, debug_status) it must be told apart from, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

"One call answers 'what is the machine doing right now'" implies the usage context but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, nor names alternatives like debug_status or session_info. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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